This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ethnic groups in the Philippines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence of the lede states "Other peoples of non-native and/or mixed descent include those such as, Filipino Mestizos (especially those of historical Mestizo de Sangley (Chinese Mestizo) and Mestizo de Español (Spanish Mestizo) descent or the mix of all of which)..." (emphasis added). I will remove the extraneous comma, reconcile the improperly nested parentheses, and standardize the two Spanish phrases, but what is meant by "...or the mix of all of which)..."? Bricology ( talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The lead makes extensive use of the term "Nation," which has ideological connotations not often noticed by Filipinos (who, as Randy David notes, are accustomed to accept "nationalism" as a default reality). Is the emphasis necessary? For example, should we prefer the phrase "ethnolinguistic nation" instead of the more anthropologically neutral "ethnolinguistic group"? I don't see a discussion of ethnic nationalism in the Philippines anywhere in the article which would serve as an explanation of the emphasis. - Batongmalake ( talk) 15:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Above discussion made me take a critical look at this (quite large) page. The "Identity of the ethnic groups" section seems a bit strange. The first 4 paragraphs are what Models of migration to the Philippines (which should better be called Peopling of the Philippines?) already offers. Then at paragraph 5 some random studies about European ancestry in Filipino DNA are randomly inserted. Paragraph 6 mentions some historical migrations from South America, without explaining what that means today. Paragraph 7 gives some background on Chinese migration. Paragraph 8 mentions South Asian DNA. Paragraph 9 randomly mentions Americans and Amerasians and 10 and 11 talk about genetic analyses of Filipinos and phenotypes. Note that none of these paragraphs ever talk about any "identity". Perhaps what is really meant is "origin". The "History" section starts off with a small repeat of the first few paragraphs of the previous section. From then on all it does is talking about foreigners arriving to the Philippines, often without using sources.
I think this page should be a simple list article and not delve into details of genetics and migration, the Philippines is too diverse to mention it all in an orderly way. Note that we already have the earlier mentioned Models of migration to the Philippines, and Filipinos#Origins and genetic studies is quite extensive as well. I think we should move some material from this page to these two pages, and perhaps even take material from Filipinos to create an article called Genetic studies on Filipinos (which I just found out, is an existing redirect to even more genetic studies), like other articles under Category:Genetics by ethnicity.
Finally, the "Immigrants & mixed peoples" section is very poorly sourced. Then, starting with Australia and downwards, the same text is copy-pasted. It just introduces the country and then says "Likewise as those from above, there have been a few recent expatriates, largely tourists, retirees, students, businessmen, traders, diplomats, or returnee migrants from overseas Filipinos who have brought home marriages with Australians. They are sometimes confused with Americans, just like other Europeans, leading to many being called Kano (short for Amerikano).". Then repeat that times 10 for 10 copy-pasted countries. Without any sources. I hope we can tidy this up a bit. -- Glennznl ( talk) 19:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
the widespread misconception by Filipinos that they are "Malays"). Solheim and Jocano are not necessary in a short summary. – Austronesier ( talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Mlgc1998: While we (= kami) have been discussing about how to improve the structure of the article, you have added lots of text about Filipino Mestizos in the lede of the article, and also to Filipinos. I'm not inclined yet to fully revert as of now, but actually this should be updated first of all in the main article Filipino Mestizos, then summarized here somewhere in one of the sections below, and this in turn summarized in the lede paragraph here. There is absolutely no reason to mention e.g. the Tan, Sy, Gokongwei families together with their assets in the lede of "Ethnic groups in the Philippines". @ Batongmalake, Glennznl, and Chipmunkdavis: can you please have a look at these recent additions? Is there a way to fix this massively WP:undue lede content without reverting it? – Austronesier ( talk) 09:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, let's all practice wp:Assume Good Faith please? Apologies if I fell short in that regard, myself. - Batongmalake ( talk) 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
A technical question for everyone: the lead currently attributes the arrival of non-native peoples to the advent of the colonial era. My concern is that this excludes the well-documented existence of at least Chinese and Japanese populations long before Magellan and Legaspi. Should those populations be considered native? Or do we draw the line further back in history? The problem with that last option is that these populations remained distinct, either by choice or because they were relatively new settlers. Either way, do we have a technical definition of non-native somewhere so this can be clarified? - Batongmalake ( talk) 01:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The relatively light complexion of the natives of Bontoc and Banaue is probably a result of the early contacts between the Japanese and other islanders from south of Japan and the natives of the Cordillera, based on a 1906 book. Brrrr.....) – Austronesier ( talk) 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Mlgc1998: I have removed again two sources because you have used them to bolster a statement about the population size of Mestizos, especially Chinese Mestizos, in spite of the fact that they are about different things, and in one case not even a WP:RS.
The reference population is based on people living in the Philippine archipelago. The large Southeast Asia/Oceania component is indicative of some of the earliest settlers of the islands of Southeast Asia some 40,000 years ago, when much of the Philippine and Indonesian archipelagoes were connected to mainland Asia. The East Asia component, in contrast, is associated with the migrants from China and Taiwan who expanded south, spreading Austronesian languages and rice cultivation some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.
Please don't reinsert these sources without discussion and consensus about their actual content and usefulness for the article. – Austronesier ( talk) 21:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
the Philippine census nor any official body during one's life in the Philippines does not even require to ask anyone about whatever ethnicity they areYet the NSO decently asked about ethnic self-identification (nothing else matters in a open and democratic society) and got 99.99% responses [3]. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence that said "The first known were the people of the Tabon man remains." This has been disproven by an examination of the Tabon man remains. - Batongmalake ( talk) 04:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. It seems to me that this article currently creates a dichotomy of "Lowland vis a vis Indigenous," which is confusing to say the least. I'm trying to figure out if there should be separate paragraphs for Lowland Christian peoples and Lowland Moro peoples. But I can't figure out the boundaries between categories since they aren't actually mutually exclusive. And it just makes migrant peoples/ non-native peoples all so much harder to clearly define. This is a structural problem, I think. Any suggestions how to fix it? - Batongmalake ( talk) 03:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This source [5] distinguishes three groups: Moros (non-IP and IP), non-Muslim IPs and the rest (non-IP, non-Muslim, thus including Mestizos and Chinese). Encyclopædia Britannica goes its own ways [6] without mentioning Moro groups at all, but Negritos, Chinese Mestizos and later immigrants (in this order) at the end of the overview. This source [7] is surprisingly uninformed in its terminology, distinguishing between "Christian Malays [sic, in 2015!]", "Muslim Malays" and "Igorot" leaving us wonder what happened to Chinese, Mestizos, Negritos, and IPs practicing traditional religions.
In any case, most sources agree having a single wider Moro group in rough classifications. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, just letting you know that I'm going to delete this sentence because it's just a random list:
Major lowland ethnolinguistic groups from north to south include, the Ilocano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayans ( Cebuano, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo, Waray, etc.), Zamboangueño, Moro, and many more.
I have replaced it with a list of groups with populations greater than 1 Million, based on the PIDS source, which is as follows:
The most populous of these groups, with populations exceeding a million individuals, include the Ilocano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayans ( Cebuano, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo, Waray.
I notice a similar random list on the Immigrant Peoples paragraph. I suggest that list should be de-randomized too. - Batongmalake ( talk) 17:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I've just made a number of structural changes in the article body, reflecting changes in the structure of the lead. Specifically, I've given the Moro peoples a top level category, and then followed the Moro-NonMoroIP-Others ordering used by the PIDS source. I think we have consensus on these changes, but I want to pause my editing here for a day or two so that others can comment on whether I've made any big boo-boos while doing the editing. - Batongmalake ( talk) 03:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, may I suggest an outline for the lead, so we can all proceed with the hard work of fixing the body?
1. First paragraph
1.1 The Philippines is inhabited by more than 175 ethnolinguistic groups, [insert any universal commonalites here] ,which are broadly categorized into Group A, Group B, and Group C, and so on.
2. Group A. 2.1. Group A first came to the Philippine archipelago (when)2. They are generally concentrated in (where) 2.2. They are characterized by (what) although there are (main exceptions) 2.3. According to the latest statistics (specify), X% of Filipinos count themselves as Group A.
3. Group B Repeat
4. Group C. Repeat.
Revisions welcome, but maybe let's build consensus here so we can stabilize the lead? Thanks - Batongmalake ( talk) 05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the more I think the reason we're having trouble in this discussion is the lack of a collective article on the various Immigrant or Expatriate Populations in the Philippines. There are articles for the individual groups, of course, but without the larger article, we have no collection of broad information on the patterns of Immigration of these peoples, and of their degrees of assimilation into Filipino society. What say you, fellow editors? A new side-project? (Sheesh, I'm really just here because I started working on Culture of the Philippines.) - Batongmalake ( talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I know we've already discussed this in bits and pieces, but may I request comments towards a clearly defined consensus please? (1) Do we prefer to use "Immigrant peoples" or "non-native peoples?" (2) (Assuming this group is separate from the immigrant/non-native peoples previously mentioned) Is there a difference betwen the terms "mestizos," "mixed heritage peoples," and "Filipinos of mixed descent"? And (3) If there is no contextual difference among the three terms under "2," is "Mestizo" preferred? (4) Is "mixed peoples" really still a used term, and should I have listed it among the choices in 2? (It feels a bit... dated... to me.) - Batongmalake ( talk) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Eithnic procedure 182.54.144.92 ( talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ethnic groups in the Philippines article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The final sentence of the lede states "Other peoples of non-native and/or mixed descent include those such as, Filipino Mestizos (especially those of historical Mestizo de Sangley (Chinese Mestizo) and Mestizo de Español (Spanish Mestizo) descent or the mix of all of which)..." (emphasis added). I will remove the extraneous comma, reconcile the improperly nested parentheses, and standardize the two Spanish phrases, but what is meant by "...or the mix of all of which)..."? Bricology ( talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The lead makes extensive use of the term "Nation," which has ideological connotations not often noticed by Filipinos (who, as Randy David notes, are accustomed to accept "nationalism" as a default reality). Is the emphasis necessary? For example, should we prefer the phrase "ethnolinguistic nation" instead of the more anthropologically neutral "ethnolinguistic group"? I don't see a discussion of ethnic nationalism in the Philippines anywhere in the article which would serve as an explanation of the emphasis. - Batongmalake ( talk) 15:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Above discussion made me take a critical look at this (quite large) page. The "Identity of the ethnic groups" section seems a bit strange. The first 4 paragraphs are what Models of migration to the Philippines (which should better be called Peopling of the Philippines?) already offers. Then at paragraph 5 some random studies about European ancestry in Filipino DNA are randomly inserted. Paragraph 6 mentions some historical migrations from South America, without explaining what that means today. Paragraph 7 gives some background on Chinese migration. Paragraph 8 mentions South Asian DNA. Paragraph 9 randomly mentions Americans and Amerasians and 10 and 11 talk about genetic analyses of Filipinos and phenotypes. Note that none of these paragraphs ever talk about any "identity". Perhaps what is really meant is "origin". The "History" section starts off with a small repeat of the first few paragraphs of the previous section. From then on all it does is talking about foreigners arriving to the Philippines, often without using sources.
I think this page should be a simple list article and not delve into details of genetics and migration, the Philippines is too diverse to mention it all in an orderly way. Note that we already have the earlier mentioned Models of migration to the Philippines, and Filipinos#Origins and genetic studies is quite extensive as well. I think we should move some material from this page to these two pages, and perhaps even take material from Filipinos to create an article called Genetic studies on Filipinos (which I just found out, is an existing redirect to even more genetic studies), like other articles under Category:Genetics by ethnicity.
Finally, the "Immigrants & mixed peoples" section is very poorly sourced. Then, starting with Australia and downwards, the same text is copy-pasted. It just introduces the country and then says "Likewise as those from above, there have been a few recent expatriates, largely tourists, retirees, students, businessmen, traders, diplomats, or returnee migrants from overseas Filipinos who have brought home marriages with Australians. They are sometimes confused with Americans, just like other Europeans, leading to many being called Kano (short for Amerikano).". Then repeat that times 10 for 10 copy-pasted countries. Without any sources. I hope we can tidy this up a bit. -- Glennznl ( talk) 19:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
the widespread misconception by Filipinos that they are "Malays"). Solheim and Jocano are not necessary in a short summary. – Austronesier ( talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Mlgc1998: While we (= kami) have been discussing about how to improve the structure of the article, you have added lots of text about Filipino Mestizos in the lede of the article, and also to Filipinos. I'm not inclined yet to fully revert as of now, but actually this should be updated first of all in the main article Filipino Mestizos, then summarized here somewhere in one of the sections below, and this in turn summarized in the lede paragraph here. There is absolutely no reason to mention e.g. the Tan, Sy, Gokongwei families together with their assets in the lede of "Ethnic groups in the Philippines". @ Batongmalake, Glennznl, and Chipmunkdavis: can you please have a look at these recent additions? Is there a way to fix this massively WP:undue lede content without reverting it? – Austronesier ( talk) 09:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, let's all practice wp:Assume Good Faith please? Apologies if I fell short in that regard, myself. - Batongmalake ( talk) 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
A technical question for everyone: the lead currently attributes the arrival of non-native peoples to the advent of the colonial era. My concern is that this excludes the well-documented existence of at least Chinese and Japanese populations long before Magellan and Legaspi. Should those populations be considered native? Or do we draw the line further back in history? The problem with that last option is that these populations remained distinct, either by choice or because they were relatively new settlers. Either way, do we have a technical definition of non-native somewhere so this can be clarified? - Batongmalake ( talk) 01:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
The relatively light complexion of the natives of Bontoc and Banaue is probably a result of the early contacts between the Japanese and other islanders from south of Japan and the natives of the Cordillera, based on a 1906 book. Brrrr.....) – Austronesier ( talk) 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Mlgc1998: I have removed again two sources because you have used them to bolster a statement about the population size of Mestizos, especially Chinese Mestizos, in spite of the fact that they are about different things, and in one case not even a WP:RS.
The reference population is based on people living in the Philippine archipelago. The large Southeast Asia/Oceania component is indicative of some of the earliest settlers of the islands of Southeast Asia some 40,000 years ago, when much of the Philippine and Indonesian archipelagoes were connected to mainland Asia. The East Asia component, in contrast, is associated with the migrants from China and Taiwan who expanded south, spreading Austronesian languages and rice cultivation some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago.
Please don't reinsert these sources without discussion and consensus about their actual content and usefulness for the article. – Austronesier ( talk) 21:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
the Philippine census nor any official body during one's life in the Philippines does not even require to ask anyone about whatever ethnicity they areYet the NSO decently asked about ethnic self-identification (nothing else matters in a open and democratic society) and got 99.99% responses [3]. – Austronesier ( talk) 17:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence that said "The first known were the people of the Tabon man remains." This has been disproven by an examination of the Tabon man remains. - Batongmalake ( talk) 04:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. It seems to me that this article currently creates a dichotomy of "Lowland vis a vis Indigenous," which is confusing to say the least. I'm trying to figure out if there should be separate paragraphs for Lowland Christian peoples and Lowland Moro peoples. But I can't figure out the boundaries between categories since they aren't actually mutually exclusive. And it just makes migrant peoples/ non-native peoples all so much harder to clearly define. This is a structural problem, I think. Any suggestions how to fix it? - Batongmalake ( talk) 03:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This source [5] distinguishes three groups: Moros (non-IP and IP), non-Muslim IPs and the rest (non-IP, non-Muslim, thus including Mestizos and Chinese). Encyclopædia Britannica goes its own ways [6] without mentioning Moro groups at all, but Negritos, Chinese Mestizos and later immigrants (in this order) at the end of the overview. This source [7] is surprisingly uninformed in its terminology, distinguishing between "Christian Malays [sic, in 2015!]", "Muslim Malays" and "Igorot" leaving us wonder what happened to Chinese, Mestizos, Negritos, and IPs practicing traditional religions.
In any case, most sources agree having a single wider Moro group in rough classifications. – Austronesier ( talk) 10:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, just letting you know that I'm going to delete this sentence because it's just a random list:
Major lowland ethnolinguistic groups from north to south include, the Ilocano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayans ( Cebuano, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo, Waray, etc.), Zamboangueño, Moro, and many more.
I have replaced it with a list of groups with populations greater than 1 Million, based on the PIDS source, which is as follows:
The most populous of these groups, with populations exceeding a million individuals, include the Ilocano, Pangasinense, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Visayans ( Cebuano, Hiligaynon/Ilonggo, Waray.
I notice a similar random list on the Immigrant Peoples paragraph. I suggest that list should be de-randomized too. - Batongmalake ( talk) 17:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I've just made a number of structural changes in the article body, reflecting changes in the structure of the lead. Specifically, I've given the Moro peoples a top level category, and then followed the Moro-NonMoroIP-Others ordering used by the PIDS source. I think we have consensus on these changes, but I want to pause my editing here for a day or two so that others can comment on whether I've made any big boo-boos while doing the editing. - Batongmalake ( talk) 03:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, may I suggest an outline for the lead, so we can all proceed with the hard work of fixing the body?
1. First paragraph
1.1 The Philippines is inhabited by more than 175 ethnolinguistic groups, [insert any universal commonalites here] ,which are broadly categorized into Group A, Group B, and Group C, and so on.
2. Group A. 2.1. Group A first came to the Philippine archipelago (when)2. They are generally concentrated in (where) 2.2. They are characterized by (what) although there are (main exceptions) 2.3. According to the latest statistics (specify), X% of Filipinos count themselves as Group A.
3. Group B Repeat
4. Group C. Repeat.
Revisions welcome, but maybe let's build consensus here so we can stabilize the lead? Thanks - Batongmalake ( talk) 05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the more I think the reason we're having trouble in this discussion is the lack of a collective article on the various Immigrant or Expatriate Populations in the Philippines. There are articles for the individual groups, of course, but without the larger article, we have no collection of broad information on the patterns of Immigration of these peoples, and of their degrees of assimilation into Filipino society. What say you, fellow editors? A new side-project? (Sheesh, I'm really just here because I started working on Culture of the Philippines.) - Batongmalake ( talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I know we've already discussed this in bits and pieces, but may I request comments towards a clearly defined consensus please? (1) Do we prefer to use "Immigrant peoples" or "non-native peoples?" (2) (Assuming this group is separate from the immigrant/non-native peoples previously mentioned) Is there a difference betwen the terms "mestizos," "mixed heritage peoples," and "Filipinos of mixed descent"? And (3) If there is no contextual difference among the three terms under "2," is "Mestizo" preferred? (4) Is "mixed peoples" really still a used term, and should I have listed it among the choices in 2? (It feels a bit... dated... to me.) - Batongmalake ( talk) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Eithnic procedure 182.54.144.92 ( talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)