Talk:Demographics of the Philippines/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mestizos in the Philippines

I reverted the changes which decreased the estimate of the native Malay population from 95% down to 80%, and the suggestion that 20% of Filipinos are mestizos. [The estimates stating 95% of the population being native Filipino are agreed upon the Filipino government, the latest Filipino census, and can be found quoted on the pages of Filipino embassy and consulate websites.]

Not only is 20% a gigantic overestimation of Filipino mestizos, but it is also historically impossible. There just weren’t enough Spaniards to have created such an immense proportion of past or present Filipinos to be mestizo.

Off all the Spanish colonies, the Philippines had the tiniest number of Spaniards, both in real numbers and as a percentage. And of these Spaniards, only a few fathered offspring in the Philippines, and of those that did father mestizos most were friars or priests.

Large-scale immigration of Spaniards, as happened in Latin America, never occurred in the Philippines. Historical evidence in Spain indicates that Spanish migrants to the Americas almost drained the entire population of Extremadura, as well as significant numbers from other regions. This never happened for the Philippines. The few that did go to the Philippines weren’t Spanish, they were mostly Mexicans, who themselves later returned to Mexico.

Added to this, native Filipinos didn’t die in the millions of introduced diseases. Native Americans had no immunities for Old World diseases, and in some areas 90% of the original populations died withing the first few years of conquest. Filipinos didn’t experience this holocaust because they are located in Asia, one of the three Old World continents, they had these diseases and the immunities to combat them.

The suggestion that the original small population of Filipino mestizos eventually mixed back into the native population, endowing every modern Filipino (or even 20% of Filipinos) with an extremely diluted amount of Spanish blood and ancesrty, is a fanaticized hypothesis.

Spanish mestizos in the Philippines were a very small and privileged minority, never surpassing more than 1% of the population at any given period. Because of the high status these half-breed-Spaniards held they were extremely endogamous, never again mixing back with natives. They thought of themselves as a separate class and ethnicity. The idea that they melded back into the native majority to make "mestizos" out of every living Filipino would suggest that they went against everything that they were taught. Mixing back with a native would "taint" the mestizo with more Malay blood than he “unfortunately” already had. Why - when the ideal for the mestizo was to have (and aspire for subsequent offspring and descendants to have) as little native ancestry as possible - would they then marry back into the native population? Answer; Filipino mestizos didn’t.

If anything, the argument could work for Latin America. Mestizos in Latin America were a growing majority, while unmixed Spaniards were a healthy large minority. So there was nothing special about the mestizos there, they had no special status, and the idealization of the Latin American wasn’t to be a mestizo - because most were this - it was to be a Spaniard. So it wasn't uncommon for Latin American mestizos to marry back into native communities; here it could be said that some Amerindians might have Spanish ancestry through an absorbed mestizo ancestor, but not in the case of the Philippines.

But anyway, the existance or not of Spanish genes among "pure Native Americans" isn't the topic.

To this day in the Philippines, because almost everyone is native (95%), the ideal is to be mestizo, and most Filipinos will falsely claim to be so, even citing the "mestiza great-great-grand-mother" or Spanish "great-great-grand-father", with no evidence other than a Spanish surname [and let's not even start with how Filipinos acquired Spanish surnames]. In Latin America, apart from the relatively large unmixed European population (aprox. 30%), the great majority are mixed-bloods (mestizos and mulattos combined, aprox. 50%) and becasue of this, the ideal is to be unmixed Spanish. So in Latin America's case, many of the mixed-bloods will falsley claim to be pure Spanish. This is called colonial mentality.

I also re-inserted the vandalized deletion of the Chronological History of the Filipino people. This shouldn't be delete. We understand that these data are not current, nobody ever suggested that they were current. What they are is a part of the documented demographic history of the Filipino people, and as such, should be used to illustrate how today's current demographics came to fruition. Al-Andalus 02:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Filipinos came from a mixture of Asian, European, and American peoples--the Negritos, Indonesians, Malays, Chinese, Indians, Arabs and other Asians; The Spaniards, British and other Europeans; the Mexicans and Americans of South and North America. (THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! ONLY TRUE TO CERTAIN EXTENT. 5% OF THE POPULATION PERHAPS!!!)

DO NOT ERASE THE ARTICLE!!!!!!---------------------

OFFICIALLY, ONLY 5% OF FILIPINOS ARE NON MALAY! STOP MAKING THIS ARTICLE INTO A FANTACY OF "FILIPINOS ARE EUROPEAN" I PUT THE ARTICLE BACK! STOP DESTROYING THE ARTICLE!

This is disgusting. How could people just vandalize the great articles like this!!!Japinoy 12:59, 22 December 2004

..

It's like saying that the Mestizos aren't Filipinos and the only people who right to be Filipinos are the PURE Natives. Stop being Racists and Xenophobics. A lot of Rapes happened during the Spanish, American and Japanese occupation. Don't deny then their Filipinoness just because their were products of forced sex.It is also said(though unconfirmed) that there had been a MINOR German settlement in somewhere in the Philippines after the mock Spanish-American war. It would be VERY reliable to say that 95% of Filipinos LOOK Malay, but the word UNMIXED is very doubtful.Besides, the constitution during the Commonwealth Government considered people who have native mother and non-native father to be an ALIEN. Meaning, they are not granted Filipino citizenship and are not considered Filipinos.

From http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40642&st=60:

btw, he based it on the the Philippine Census of 2000 or something, but the he did not actually realize, that unlike the country where he came from, OUR census only categorize "mestizo" if a person is a product between a filipino citizen and a foreigner with another nationality, or filipinos who is a product a filipino-spaniard. Philippine census do not "demographize" races, but philippine census demigrpahize age, sex and regional affinity aka ethnicity (e.g. Bicolano, Kapampangan, Cebuano, etc) Which means if two cebuano parents who are quarter Spanish is filipino citizen, they are not categorized as "mestizos" but Cebuanos, and cebuanos racial background is collectively Malay, which explains why the Filipino population is 95% Malay. The Census do not tell in the data if these 95% malay are "pure". It is more of a default category, since Filipino racial base stock is Malay. but i would like to stress that, the census did not say that these 95% malays are pure and unmixed, okay! because if you would want to based on the census as filipinos to be 95% UNMIXED malay, the fact is Filipinos who have chinese blood alone totaled to 20% of the population. what about filipinos who have Spanish blood? and other blood like arabs and indian?


Stop this!!

Laloy! Stop changing the fact into your fantasy world. This is based on actual fact!

I hope this will End!!

I hope everything will go back to normal.

NPOV

Hi, please post an NPOV if needed. It will help to resolve this situation.--Jondel 09:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions about Al-Andalus

questions moved from Wikipedia talk:Contact us:
  • I would like to know the credibility of Al Andalus on his report regarding the Demographics of the Philippines. It appears he doesn't know the colonial history of the Philippines and his idea is based on the fiction books Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. I also want to know his current location, if he was born and raised in the Philippines and his educational attainment.

Thanks...***

posted by User:151.198.174.99 on Jan 13; moved by Catherine\talk 20:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Al-Andalus has claimed in the past to be a 3rd generation Australian Jew. Based on his edits, I leave it to you decide if that claim is credible. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jay, fair is fair. What edits are you referring to? There doesn't seem to be any thing wrong with the last edits (Kastila ?). Please

  • Assume Good Faith -Very Important or things deteriorate in to embroglios. No personal attacks.
  • Base your accusations/changes on sources . The internet is very wide and easy to search.Not too dificult.
  • Stop ostracizing, harrasing. How can you do this anyway on open source? Anybody can edit any article. A Jew can edit muslim articles and vice versa. (Feel free to edit other articles yourself.There are gazillions of other articles , why focus on this? )You ofcourse need to back up with references. Linux was built by a student. As you are an administrator you can not go against any policy here. --Jondel 00:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1) I'm referring to edits on other articles, 2) I have assumed as much good faith as is warranted under the circumstances, 3) I have no idea what you mean, and 4) I'm neither ostracizing nor harrassing. Your questions/accusations makes no sense. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just because he is not Filipino doesn't mean he can not make edits of Filipino articles. (I'm pinoy btw , reporter ako sa Japan). If you distinguish/separate Basques, you might as well distinguish Andalusians, Galicians, Gallegans, Castillianos, Calunyans, Valencians, Spanish Jews, Conversos, Marranos. But it is no big deal and nobody minds if it if you separate Basques. When I say ostracizing, I mean , it seems his edits are unwanted simply because he is not pinoy. Why? I experience ostracizing here. Some Japanese co-workers don't like it when I speak Tagalog.--Jondel 01:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have neither said nor implied that he cannot make edits on "Filipino articles" simply because he is not Filipino. As for the Basque people, their history, language, culture, etc. is quite distinct from the other groups you mention. I encourage you to read the article on them. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the title of this section is Questions on Al-Andalus(response to non-filipinos editing Filipino credentials). Why are there questions on Al-Andalus? About Basques. They indeed have very uniqe culture., I know they exist even in France in the Pyreenes. Do they need to be outside or separate from the Spanish grouping? Andorra, an independent country has a Catalan culture and language. Catalunyans, like the Basques are not limited to one country.Gallegans really have the same language as the Portugese. How about the Jews? But there really is no problem, if you identify them as separate groups. I personally know that many Spaniards in the Philippines had to speak Castillian with slight Andalusian influence, although I can't find internet resources to do so. --Jondel 02:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't create this section, nor its title, nor post those questions for Al-Andalus. As for the Basque, it's not a question of them "needing" anything. They are the oldest people in Europe, they were there before the French and Spanish and Calatans arrived, they speak a language totally unrelated to Spanish or French or any other language on earth. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok,Ok. Let Basques be mentioned together with the Spaniards , who arrived in the Philippines. BTW, Edgar Cayce, in one of his readings mentioned that they descended from the Antlanteans. I've met Basque descendents like Echevarrias. We have a game called Jai -Alai whcih came from them. To tell you the truth, I am fascinated by them as well. Very little of their words can be found in other languages. Going back, Al-Andalus is a separate issue then. There seems to be a lot of heat, though on Al-Andalus. I can't help notice it. It is a bit unfair.--Jondel 02:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL, Jayjg, you crack me up :) That's it boy, a pinch of salt, tea spoon of discontent and fustration, then stir the pot! Hehehehe Al-Andalus 20:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC).

Just checking up on you Al-Andalus, and I have to say, if we're on the same page here, I have no idea what constructive purpose the preceding exchange could possibly have served... The questions regarding your qualifications were never addressed, and in fact, the entire thread turned into a puddle of drool... TomerTALK 05:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Like I wasn't expecting the cheering squad to show up. "Just checking up on" me? Tomer, I understand you perfectly, and I am fully aware that I've been tagged by our elders. Al-Andalus 07:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC).
FLUSH...that's the sound of the last bit of seriousness with which I take anything said by anyone who babbles on about being persecuted by "the cabal". If that's what you're saying, let me know so I can determine whether or not to jiggle the handle... TomerTALK 03:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

BASQUE AS A SEPARATE GROUP POLL

  • Allow, no big deal. Although they really should belong to the Spanish Group. My grandmother(abolita) spoke Valenciano but was forced to speak Castillian, the standard in the Philippines. --Jondel 00:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basques in the Philippines

I just would like comments, confirmations, corrections etc. These are the names of Basques that I know in the Philippines. Echevarria, Elizalde(?), Ichigoya,Azcarraga.Others?

Don't forget Taboada, Vasquez, and Aznar. I am sure that the Taboada's are of Jewish heritage, because my grandmother is white as a ghost. And I did some research and Taboada can be traced back to spain. Also most of the cebuano's are mix.


Arabs?

Where there Arabs really? Muslims maybe but not arabs.--Jondel 08:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Mexicans in Philippines

there were more hispanics in philippines than only those of the colonial age, though I don't know if any of they stayed (see: Escuadrón 201), also some Mexican insurgents were sent to Philippines during the Mexican independence war.link in spanish

Possibly, they must have been absorbed into the masses.Filipinos and mexicans resemble each other a little bit.--Jondel 05:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes. The Macabebes. who are soldiers (of Aztec origin), was deployed by Spanish commanders to the Philippines. Most of them had took native (esp. Kapampangan) wives and settled in the Philippines. The townspoeple of Macabebe are one of their descendants here in the Philippines. --User:Matthewprc 11:56, 02 November 2005
That would make an interesting article. Need references though. I would love to investigate Aztec/Nahuatle words that might be found in waray.--Jondel 04:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

75% of the business?

The Chinese handle 75% of MacDonalds, call centers, bus transportation,sari-sari stores, groceries, auto-mechanic shops, utilites like phones and water (?) There are many aspects of buisness. I wouldn't be surprised if they owned 90 % of Divisioria. but how can the Chinese handle 75 % of the businesses of of the whole Philippines? --Jondel 05:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think McDonalds, Jollibee chain of stores (i.e., including Chowking, Greenwich, etc.), Metrobank, Philippine Airlines, Chinabank,

SM Dpeartment Stores, San Miguel Corporation, Robinson Dpeartment Sotres, Universal Robina Corp., Rustans Dept. Store, nearly all of the stores of Divisoria, shares of stock (often the majority) in Philippine National Bank, Landbank, BPI, Almost all auto-mechanic shops in Banawe street, Chinatown businesses, and other smaller enterprises are owned by the Chinese --User:Matthewprc 12:05, 02 September 2005 (UTC).

W really need authoritive reliable sources for this info. In journalism, wrong info could hurt the wrong people.--Jondel 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Stanford University study

I deleted the Stanford University study and edits that were inserted by user Matthewprc, as well as deleting it from the main article Ethnic groups of the Philippines.

  • "Note: Recent studies on Oceanic population hosted by Stanford University regarding Y-haplogroups (see link in Demographics of the Philippines) states that Filipinos come from a mixture of Austronesian, Chinese, and Caucasian gene pool, thus confirming that Filipinos are of mixed racial descent."

The source where the disinformation claims to have been compiled from: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf

The study shows the exact opposite of what Matthewprc claimed. Matthewprc'S comentary could not have been a misinterpretation of the findings. Even the title of the research paper states it clearly, that the heritage of the Austronesian-speaking peoples of Southeast Asia and Oceania is predominantly indigenous. Such a conclusion as edited into the article could not have been anything other than a deliberate disinformation. The study indicates that the FREQUENCY of Filipinos in the research showing to have European markers was 3.6%. The only thing the study does demonstrate is that the Philippines has a tiny European-type mestizo population (ie. Spanish-mestizos or any other that is of the indigenous mixed with European type). The article Demographics of the Philippines already states this.

The researchers identified "a total of 48 chromosomes as European, ranging in frequency from 0% in Western Samoa to 29% in French Polynesia. Some European introgression was also evident in Southeast Asia (2.3%–7.8%) and the Philippines (3.6%)." The "range of frequency" IS "how often" (stated as a percentage) people were identified as posessing European markers, it IS NOT the "average admixture" of European genes in the overall population. "European chromosomes were identified in 25 samples from French Polynesia, 5 from Vanuatu, 4 from Kota Kinabalu, 3 from Tonga and Atiu, 2 from Palu and Pekanbaru, and 1 each from Fiji, Mataram, Banjamarasin, and the Philippines."

Now for the equation; 100 ÷ A × B = F. "A" represents the total number of samples (there were 28 samples from the Philippines and 87 from French Polynesia), "B" represents the number of sample that showed as having European markers (1 sample from the Philippines and 25 from French Polynesia), "F" represents the frequency, and "100" is to get the result as a percentage. Philippines: 100 ÷ 28 × 1 = 3.57, in other words 3.6% of all Filipinos have European admixture, the rest do not. French Polynesia: 100 ÷ 87 × 25 = 28.7, in other words 29% of French Polynesians have European admixture, the rest do not.

While the study already makes clear that the make-up of Austronesia-speakers in Southeast Asia and Oceania is almost exclusively indigenous, it goes on further to say that any European admixture is most "common south of the Philippines", in other words, the Philippines shows the lowest frequency (3.6%), then the Philippines' southern neighbours Malaysia/Indonesia reach frequencies twice as high (up to 7.8%) and then the frequency gets highest in Oceania (French Polynesia, 28%).

All this shoots and kills Matthewprc's edits. The findings of the study clearly counter Matthewprc's arguments and assertion that the study confirms "that Filipinos are of mixed racial descent". All it shows is what we've always known, the European-type mestizo community is tiny in the Philippines.

I may be kicked in the head for saying this, but this sounds all a bit too IMSCF Syndrome-ish. The constant edits on various articles insisting that Filipinos are a racially mixed population, a hybrid of Europeans and "Austronesians" (a linguistic term of poor choice that has been adopted by those who do not like saying Malay), is in all honesty, getting beyond tiring.

If in a group of 100 people there a 3 people that are mulattos (ie. people of 50% European and 50% African ancestry) and 97 other people that are African, that means that the average admixture of the group as a whole is 1.5% European, and 98.5% African. HOWEVER, does this then mean that all 100 people in the group actually have some European admixture? No, it does not. 97% are still Africans without any European admixture, because the group consists of 100 people, and we know 97 are African. Saying that the average admixture for the group is 1.5% is simply a way of stating the average European admixture of the group as a whole. It is not saying that the every member in the group contributed to the count. The percentage of individuals in the group actually having a European admixture is 3%, because the group consists of 100 people (the population), and we know 3 are mulattos (people of mixed European and African descent). This also does not mean that 3% of the genetic make up of every person in the group is composed of European genes. It's all a matter of understanding mathematic terminology, and interpreting everything in its proper context.

Now, the study in question states that 3.6% of Filipinos have some European genetic markers. That means that in every group of 1000 Filipinos, 36 have European markers and the other 964 Filipinos do not. It DOES NOT say that 3.6% of every individual Filipino is genetically European.

Furthermore, of those 36 in every 1000 Filipinos, it does not specify what the average European admixture is among them say nor how many of them actually show any European physical features. The average European admixture of each one of those 36 Filipinos could be 5% European, or 20% European, or 50% European, or 75% European. It is precisely because it DOES NOT say what the average admixture is European among that 3.6%, that we are much less able to say what the "average admixture" would be for the entire Filipino population as a whole; taking into account that 96.4% of the Filipino population has already been said not to have any European genetic markers at all.

Let's assume that among the 3.6% of Filipinos who do have some European genetic markers, every one of them was of exactly 50% European and 50% Filipino ancestry, that would mean that the average European admixture for the Filipino population AS A WHOLE would be only 1.8% European and 97.2% Asian. But does this actually mean that 1.8% of the genetic make-up of each and every individual Filipino is European? No, it does not. The percentage of those who actually have the European genetic markers is still only 3.6%.

Having said all that, I do believe the study is of great interest, and should be added as an external link or useful source, but as a source of demonstrating what it actually says, that those of mixed European ancestry are a tiny, tiny, minority. Al-Andalus 09:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC).

Using this criteria, we identify a total of 48 chromosomes as European, ranging in frequency from 0% to Western Samoa to 29% in French Polynesia. Some introgression was also evident in Southeast Asia (2.3%-7.8%) and the Philippines (3.6%) Based in this study, what this simply means is the frequency of chromosomes and NOT the frequency of people, as you wrongly interpreted. 203.87.151.54 04:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. Once again, you must read the entire section to understand the terminology. Frequency refers to the frequency in which people were found to carry European markers.
  • "DNA samples of Southeast Asians, Melanesians, Polynesians, and a subset of Formosans were provided by John Clegg, from the Institute of Molecular Medicine collection, Oxford... In addition, 28 individuals from the Philippines were genotyped."
  • "European chromosomes were identified in 25 samples from French Polynesia, 5 from Vanuatu, 4 from Kota Kinabalu, 3 from Tonga and Atiu, 2 from Palu and Pekanbaru, and 1 each from Fiji, Mataram, Banjamarasin, and the Philippines."
So the study indicates clearly that there were 28 samples (28 people) from the Philippines, only 1 sample (1 person) was found to carry any European markers. As a fraction that is represented as "1/28", or as a percentage , "3.57%" of the people sampled had European markers. Rounded up one decimal point it becomes "3.6%"; which is exactly the findings of the study. For the enth time, 3.6% does not refer to the amount of European admixture in Filipinos, but to the frequency of Filipinos which are found to have European markers. Additionally, it DOES NOT state what the average European admixture was amongst those found with the markers (he could've been one sixteenth European, were a great-great grandparent was Caucasian).
Much like user Matthewprc, you are intentionally misinterpreting the the sutdy, its terminology, and its finding. I don't understand this push in persisting to present Filipinos as a "mixed race" population, descendants of Europeans and "Austronesians" (in whatever ratio), when all historical colonial data of negligible European presence, dismal rate of miscegenation, current and past Philippine government and independant data, and now genetic research ALL attest that for over 96% of the population this is clearly not the case.
Of course the deeper complex issues of the crisis in Filipino identity - which are responsable for the categorically unfounded and persistant we're-not-Asian,-we're-part-European - must be addressed, but ignoring reality and trying to recreate and rewrite history is not helping any bit. Al-Andalus 06:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC).
I'm not sure about your interpretations-see how forum members in[1] and [2] interpret the data (all from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and the Philippines [By the way, I'm not a member of that forum]). Look at the pie charts of Figure 1 for the Philippines and South China. If your observations are correct, then there must be more Chinese than Filipinos in the Philippines, which is absolutely a contradiction! Well then, given the situation that it is the frequency of people, then this contradicts your edits that 'less than 1.5% of the population is Spanish Mestizo', where in fact as the journal shows, it is accountable for 3.6%, Moreover, Unlike its counterpart in other countries, the Philippine National Statistics Office does not include ethnicity in its surveys, and before, even it includes such surveys, it does classify as Mestizo only who have 1/2 Filipino and 1/2 FOreign blood thus if a Filipino individual is for example 3/4's Tagalog and 1/4 Spanish (a Castizo), he is classified as a Cebuano, thus, leading to the natural diminutive percentage of mestizos, hence, there is no such thing as a universally agreed number on the population of mestizos. On the use of the term Austronesian, I see nothing wrong in the use of the term Austronesian, even leading anthropologists and scholars use it. Malay is the wrong term, since according to new theories regarding Austronesian migration, the Austronesians came from South China to Taiwan, and from then on towards the Philippines and towards Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as to the other Pacific islandic groupings. Why then call the Filipinos Malays if in fact, the Malays (I refer to the people of Malaysia) are the ones who, from the start, came from the Philippines. Refrring to the IMSCF Syndrome article, I think it degrades Filipinos are makes the world think that Filipinos are a bunch of psychopaths. According to Al-Andalus:....I don't understand this push in persisting to present Filipinos as a "mixed race" population, descendants of Europeans and "Austronesians" (in whatever ratio), when all historical colonial data of negligible European presence, dismal rate of miscegenation, current and past Philippine government and independant data, and now genetic research ALL attest that for over 96% of the population this is clearly not the case. As I've said, there is no Philippine Survey regarding Ancestry and Ethnicities, and if there is something on the Internet, it is probably a carryover from the 60s or 70s, when Ancestries are still included in the census, even so, it does not include as Mestizos those with 1/4s European blood. Actually, there is no crisis in Filipino identity - in fact, it is those who say that Filipinos have no European blood who lead Filipinos to crisis, as Filipinos are already comfortable with claiming European ancestors, which in many cases, if not most, are true, since from the start the Filipinos, the lowland Filipinos, in particular, are a mxiture of people. You cannot judge people to be European or not European as based on their physiognomy or facial features-this is like saying that 'white-skinned' Africans are not Africans, 'red-skinned' Spanish living in the Mediterranean are not Europeans, or 'rounded eyed' Cantonese are not Chinese. It is just that there are more Austronesian blood in Filipinos than European. I think you are being too much sarcastic about the number of European blood in Filipinos. Even the webpage of the GOvernment of the Philippines attest tjat Filipinos are primarily of mixed blood:[3].I also think that you are being sarcastic against Jews with your removing of Jews section in the Ethnic Groups of the Philippines and in some other country articles, (which are the complaints of otehr Wikipedians) then you create the Jews in the Philippines article. You have been using argumentum ad hominem too much (as I have noticed in the other discussions in which you write) against me and other people, and I think it is now even getting greater. Anyhow, you have contributed many great articles and edits to Wikipedia, but I strongly suggest that you visit the Philippines or at least watch Filipino TV stations (in the Philippines or aborad such as Middle East, Hong Kong, USA, and Canada, if I'm not mistaken), and you'll see for yourself that it is highly improbable that only 1.5% are of Mestizo origins. Cheers. Matthewprc 12:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC).
I saw this on some forum: ...but you know, there are racists out there that use that title to keep Pinoys down in the U.S., and I don't really like it. Kamatis, meron ng racist dyan sa internet na create yung "syndrome" nayan, ayoko yan, I'm glad I posted on there and told them what a bunch of racists they were for coming up with some stup~d syndrome. Marami sa internet ang inaccurate information, tip to everybody, you should only trust RELIABLE SOURCES like the Institute of Cervantes. Wikipedia was like "there's only less then 100,000 Spanish speakers in Philippines in the 1990s", but I read in the Institute of Cervantes the current population is 2.9 million. What are you going to trust, some racists who manipulate information on some stup~d online encyclopedia that anyone can write on, or the INSTITUTE OF CERVANTES, a prestigious worldwide academic institution? Also, I know the Institute of Cervantes is right, because my "Learn Spanish" book published by the BBC has the same exact population number of Spanish speakers for the Philippines: 2.9 million. This is the sentiments of some Filipinos who are against the IMSCF Syndrome article. As it goes, this article deprives Filipinos of the humanity they deserve and brands them as psychopaths. Matthewprc 12:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
"contradicts your edits that 'less than 1.5%". One again, you have interpreted everything to your own agenda. The "1.5%" you quote me as having said had nothing to do with the actual research. It was my example of a fictional population's sample and results, to illustrate how the data of the actual research and study is supposed to be interpreted. Since the little detail that "1.5%" was an example has escaped your attention, your continuing rant throughout the rest of your post is utterly irrelevant, in addition to once again flawed because of misinterpretation. I would highly suggest you read everything properly, over and over again (both the research paper and my post) before you reply. Al-Andalus 00:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC).
"as Mestizo only who have 1/2 Filipino and 1/2 FOreign blood thus if a Filipino individual is for example 3/4's Tagalog and 1/4 Spanish (a Castizo), he is classified as a Cebuano". Now I am FULLY convinced that a) your are not acquainted with terminology in the field of statistics, b) you are ill aquatinted with the terminology of the castes (note your incorrect use of "castizo", better yet, see that article), c) you are dyslexic (your example is a hypothetical person of 3/4th Tagalog and 1/4th Spanish ancestry, whom you say is allegedly not categorised as "mestizo" - which is false anyway, see point "d" - and to top it off you say is categorised as a Cebuano?), d) you are unaware of the unique Philippines usage of the caste terminology during the colonial period (this goes hand in hand with "c", but see Talk:Mestizo#TruthComission's Misinformations for details), and e) English is perhaps not your first language. Al-Andalus 00:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC).
"I strongly suggest that you visit the Philippines or at least watch Filipino TV stations...and you'll see for yourself that it is highly improbable that only 1.5% are of Mestizo origins." Now you've totally shot yourself in the foot. Firstly, I have been to the Philippines and I know what demographic reality I wittnessed (which for the record, is the exact same thing as corroborated by all data sourced from anywhere and any era, and now even the Stanford study) but it's not about my perceptions anyway, even if they do coincide with all sources. Secondly, I know in intimate detail the in's and out's of the Filipino entertainment industry and how it is run on colonial ideals of beauty, that is the mestizo ideal. In the Philippines, mestizos are a rare condition, the overwhelming majority (95%) is indigenous, the mestizo minority is tiny, while the unmixed White population is statistically insignificant. Where as in Latin America, for example, the ideal is to be Spanish because of the overall population the largest segment are indeed mix-bloods (mestizos and mulattos together just over 50%). The next largest segment is composed of whites (around 30%), and the remaining 20% is divided between the small minority of unmixed Amerindians, Blacks and others.
You may as well suggest I go and watch Mexican television, so that way I can see and realise how erred in my ways I am to think that Mexico is a mestizo majority nation, because as you pointed out, Mexican TV shows me that they are infact mostly white. The same goes for television on the Indian subcontinent, and the sight of only light-skinned, and green-eyed actors. Do you realise how thinly you are grasping on this fantasy of a Spanish origin for Filipinos? Do you not see the desperate want and need to be part Spanish of Filipinos? No matter how small the hoped and wished for Spanish admixture is, even if only 1%, as long as it's not pure Filipino because that would be a "tragedy", but that 1% Spanish blood would validate a Filipino's life? It's all Colonial mentality.
By the way, I saw those two forums you recommended ([4] and [5]), and all of it is also dribble. Most of the posters have also interpreted the finding in the same erred manner as you have. They have selectively misread and misunderstood the figures and terminology so as to "boast" who among the colonial-mentality-riddled self-hating-Asian lot of them has more drops of European and less litres of Asian blood. Al-Andalus 00:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC).
"The "1.5%" you quote me as having said had nothing to do with the actual research. It was my example of a fictional population's sample and results, to illustrate how the data of the actual research and study is supposed to be interpreted." Well then, it shows that you keep on posting things that are in fact fictional (and not factual) in nature. "Now I am FULLY convinced that a) your are not acquainted with terminology in the field of statistics, b) you are ill aquatinted with the terminology of the castes (note your incorrect use of "castizo", better yet, see that article), c) you are dyslexic (your example is a hypothetical person of 3/4th Tagalog and 1/4th Spanish ancestry, whom you say is allegedly not categorised as "mestizo" - which is false anyway, see point "d" - and to top it off you say is categorised as a Cebuano?), d) you are unaware of the unique Philippines usage of the caste terminology during the colonial period (this goes hand in hand with "c", but see Talk:Mestizo#TruthComission's Misinformations for details), and e) English is perhaps not your first language." First of all, how does the Castizo-Mestizo thing fit into your description of Non-Acquaintance With Statistics?; Who are you to say that I am not well-versed in Statistical terminologies? In fact, Statistics is one of my specializations (just to stop your ranting). Another thing - I'm not dyslexic-I think you are the one. No offense. :) (My example explains how the Philippine Statistics Office classifies people into certain categories; what's dyslexic about that?); Another thing: What makes you say that English is not my first language? In fact, you have more grammatical and/or spelling errors than I do (if there are any). I think your first language is not English-but in fact Spanish (or Arabic). He leído sus postes en otros artículos. To top it all, at least I reply in the most educated manner, which is quite opposite of what you are doing. "You may as well suggest I go and watch Mexican television, so that way I can see and realise how erred in my ways I am to think that Mexico is a mestizo majority nation, because as you pointed out, Mexican TV shows me that they are infact mostly white. The same goes for television on the Indian subcontinent, and the sight of only light-skinned, and green-eyed actors" Well, Mexican telenovelas are shown here in the Philippines, and many, if not some, of the actors, totally resemble many Filipinos in some aspects."By the way, I saw those two forums you recommended ([6] and [7]), and all of it is also dribble. Most of the posters have also interpreted the finding in the same erred manner as you have. They have selectively misread and misunderstood the figures and terminology so as to "boast" who among the colonial-mentality-riddled self-hating-Asian lot of them has more drops of European and less litres of Asian blood." How can you say they hate themselves if in fact, Asiafinest.com, the website that you have viewed, is actually organized as an answer to the growing Anti-Asian White Nationalist Organizations, such as Stormfront. I noticed that you didn't comment on the IMSCF Syndrome thing. Yo sólo quiero que usted sepa que yo no tengo malas intenciones. Yo no significo para insultarlo, porque usted es uno del Wikipedians el más grande y usted han contribuido las cosas magníficas en Wikipedia, pero en las palabras que usted usa en sus postes son muy duras y degradar no sólo a mí pero también a otros Filipinos. Salga por favor sus comentarios en mi Página de Discurso por no interrumpir esta Discusión de artículos. Gracias. User:Matthewprc 06:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC).

When I said "to "boast" who among the colonial-mentality-riddled self-hating-Asian lot of them has more drops of European and less litres of Asian blood" I was refering entirely to those two threads you quoted, not to the forum itself (which is not that bad). Just a few examples of the self-hating auto-racism on those threads are;

  • "Let this image serve as a warning to any pure Malay thinking about marrying ugly [mongoloid] races. This is the fate that awaits their children. I must regretfully say 2000 yrs of peaceful interactions with the Chinese has taken its toll on the purity of the Malay race. It is most unfortunate that Malay lands and China is geographically too close to one another.Had we been two thousand miles further apart, the frequency of caucasoid looking Malays would be much higher."
  • "I've always thought Malaysians and Indonesians look alike...Apparently, I'm mistaken....How do they look like?...Do they look more like Europeans, Persians or Northern Indian?" This post was not sarcastic, as one might otherwise believe. It actually went on to discuss how the [wishful?] appearance of the Malayans was relative to that of Persians and Arabs, in other words, they too are members of the Caucasoid people. Again, these were not posts of sarcasm. They people would make the most fervent and extreme white nationalists and extremists, if only they themselves weren't Asian.
  • "70% appear caucasoid.You can be sure most of them are natives of Riau."
  • "Policeman in Kampar Riau.Their caucasoid faces may be a bit blurry in this pic but all of them clearly have decent height and are athletically built."
  • "There is always a percentage of Malaysian govt officials...who look mongoloid but...all...Indragiri (Riau) officials are caucasoid looking.'"

From those two threads, one would think that forum actually was a sister site to Stomfront. All I see on those threads is degrading remarks made by one group of Asians, that is, Malays proud of being "Aryans" on account of some 4% of their population having shown a small degree of Caucasoid genetic admixture (even though the study does not say that that admixture is actually manifested phenotypically for those that do posess it) against other Asians for being Mongoloids, for not being "Aryans" like the Malay race supposedly is. In any case, I see this is getting us no where. I don't even want to being addressing ALL the flaws and suggestions in your posts, especially of how people on Mexican television (mostly white people) supposedly resemble "many" Filipinos. Filipino television (mostly mestizo) itself doesn't resemble the majority of Filipinos (95% unmixed indigenous Malayans), let alone would Mexican television since it doesn't even resemble most Mexicans (overwhelmingly mestizo). Since my aim here is not to change your personal opinion on the demographic composition of the Philippines (wrong as it is), but to make sure that only sourced and reliable content makes it to the article, I will retire here. As fun as it has been for me to point out the contradictions and ill-conceived methods of reasoning in your posts, I will maintain my replies to the betterment of the article's content and less on trying to demonstrate to you the flaws (obvious they should be) of your own personal opinions (even if i managed to do this, it would still be a waste of my time, since the article would have gained nothing).Al-Andalus 00:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging AFDed article

Demographics of the Philippines by other sources did not get consensus to delete on its AFD debate. It was suggested to merge the article with this one, and as an editor I have decided to do so. As the talk page now redirects here, you can find the original content of the talk page below. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Original talk

Well, si dj ay mataba at mabaho was getting a bit lengthy so I created this new link. I'm not sure about these claims though...

Mucb better, but can't this be added to the original article on the demog. of the philippines?

I find this source less racist because IMO, it atleast considers other claims with regards to the racial make up of Filipinos. The other one is disgusting, full of prejudice and racism.

they clearly need to be merged,dj mabaho any sources - please add sources, then merge with the main article - Tedernst 23:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
So long after this article's creation, it still doesn't cite sources becuase there are no sources that corroborate the misinformation. That's why it had to be taken out of the main article. I don't get your resentment of the main article. What exaclty is racist and full of prejudice in the main article?
It's not about considering other "claims" made of the racial make up of Filipinos, it's whether any of those "claims" can actually be substansiated by any shred of evidence, other than wishful thinking, and they can't. All sources attest that the reality of the demographic make of the Philippines is another one, not the one presented in this page. It's amazing that this page had had such a long life as it is. Al-Andalus 20:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)'
Hi! You totally obliterated the entire content of the article Demographics of the Philippinesby other sources!!! I think it would be more objective if you would subsume (but not erase) the said article's contents in this (Demographics of the Philippines) article.-User:Matthewprc 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC 8+)

Africans in the Philippines

Is this article necessary? Is the list necessary? I won't nominate this for AfD, but perhaps the content of the article should be seriously considered. --R6MaY89 22:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I too question this article, strongly. I am a Filipino living in the Philippines, and have never heard or read of "African-Filipino" as a designation (unlike, for example, "Chinese-Filipino" or "American-Filipino"). "African-Filipino" does not seem to be a valid cultural/ethnic subgroup to me. Certainly (given my country's history) there are Filipinos of African-American descent, but, to my knowledge, in the Philippines there are no notable communities of people who self-identify as "African-Filipino" -- which I imagine is significant in saying whether or not such a grouping/distinction is valid. For the descendants of American military servicemen (African-American or otherwise), "American-Filipino"/"Filipino-American" would seem to be more appropriate.
Further, doing a Google search for "African-Filipino" (to gauge the prevalence of such a term) only comes up with this Wiki entry. (There are other hits, but none supporting the context in question.) And the article itself cites no references for its claims/statements that imply that "African-Filipino" is indeed a valid group.
For now, I've flagged the article for lack of sources. But if no sources are forthcoming, I would take that to mean the subject is not valid, and the article would need to be deleted. --Mercurio 12:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Which do you think is the real demographic status of the Philippines?

  • Austin Craig -- supported by the book The Philippines Through Foreign Eyes: 57% Tagala (i.e., Filipinos), 33% Mestizo (Filipino-SPanish), 3% CHinese, 1.3% South American, 0.0075% Spanish
  • Otley Beyer -- based on his research, promoted by several Philippine history books written by the scholar Gregorio Zaide: 40% Malay, 30% Indonesian, 10% Chinese, 5% Indian, 3% EUropean and American, 2% Arab
  • 'So-called' Philippine Statistical Office reports : 95.5% Malay, 1.5% Chinese, 3% Others
  • DK Financial Times World Desk Reference : Filipino 50%, INdonesian and Polynesian 30%, Chinese 10%, Indian 5%, Others 5%
  • Stanford University genetic study (based on number of genes) : Chinese-52, Formosan Aborigine-Malayan (i.e., Austronesian)-47, European-1

The Wikipedian community must choose between these five, since the constant editing and re-editing has been very irksome and totally opinionated. Obviously, the 'so-called' Phils. Statistical Office reports hasn't been verified, as with Craig's, Beyer's, and the DK's. -- ??? 06:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Suggestion, just quote them all(?). I personally feel there really should be no distinction between Indonesian, Polynesian, Malay, Formosan Aborigine-Malayan (i.e., Austronesian) and Filipino, in other words the same race.--Jondel 02:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Jondel. Thos are all people of Malay Stock. The Malay race has many different ethnicities (e.g. Bisayan, Kadazan, Tagalog, Bikolano), but they are still part of the Malay Stock. --Jandela 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Brits

12,000 wow. I never knew there would be that many. --Jondel 11:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That many? LOL. Amid a population of 90 million, 30,000 Europeans (Iberians included) is not many. Al-Andalus 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC).
That statistic, which actually comes from [www.joshuaproject.com] is actually incomplete. There are lots of Europeans unaccounted for, which includes Belgians, Dutch, Italians, and many more others. --User:Matthewprc 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Filipino is beyond ethnicity

Diagram 1: Ethnicity and Nationality

I urge you not to use the term “ethnic Filipino” or to use “Filipino” to mean low-land Austronesian-speaking Filipinos.

In several articles in Wikipedia, the term Filipino is equated with the Tagalog + the Bisaya + the Ilokano + the Kapangpangan + the Bicolano, etc.

I think it is true that the Philippines is composed mostly of these ethnolinguistic groups. However, I think that Filipino should not be defined in terms of ethnicity. I think Filipino is in a totally different level. Please see diagram 1.

Great Filipino thinkers have been very prudent in defining what Filipino is. For instance:

“History has our dates down in black and white, and knows that the Filipino, because he was created in the 16th and 17th centuries by a tool-forged fusion of tribes from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; Spanish and Chinese mestizos; etc..” – Nick Joaquin
“The Filipino belongs to a mixture of races, although basically he is a Malay.” – Teodoro Agoncillo

Nick Joaquin’s etcetera and Agoncillo’s mixture clearly shows that Filipino could not be pigeon-holed into a certain ethnicity or a group of ethnicities. Doing so would be like saying blues music is music played with a guitar, drums and keyboards. Blues music couldn’t be defined by the instruments used to play it the same way Filipino could not be defined by the ethnicities of its members!

Phrases like the following should therefore be avoided:

Filipinos comprise 90% of the Philippines.

Or divisions like the following:

People of the Philippines
Filipino
Ilokano
Tagalog
Kapangpangan
Bikolano
Bisaya
Maguindanao
Etc.
Chinese
Spanish
Etc.

Thanks! --Nino Gonzales 11:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Pretty as the diagram is, it is not an ilustration of anything. The diagram represents nothing, it has absolutely no value as a tool of statitical mapping. Where was it sourced from? I can guarantee you that no academic institution would have released such a graphic. It represents nothing but the vivid colours on it. Perhaps it's art? Al-Andalus 16:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
As there's no official statistical census on the ethnicities of the Philippines, all numbers are just estimates. (If we based this article on the recent study of Stanford (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf

) then the proportion would simply be something like 52% Chinese, 45% Formosan, and 3% European). Actually, the term Filipino denotes the entire Philippine population (so some people are referred to as a 'Filipino of Chinese descent', 'Filipino of Spanish descent', etc.). As mistaken as the term 'Ethnic Filipino' goes, there is no single collective name for Austronesian lowlanders, hence, people resort to use that term. Regarding the use of the term 'Malay': I think that the lowlander Filipinos are descended from Austronesians, not from Malays - Malays and the lowlander Filipinos stand as co-equals since both are descended from Austronesians - some anthropologists mistakenly refer to the lowlander Filipinos as Malays, due to their similarity in appearance and in customs. This case is also similar with that of the Hakka people of China, which are referred to as 'Han CHinese' because of their adoption of CHinese customs (but they are actually not part of the Han ethnicity- they are the aborigines of China and are said to be related to the Austronesians by Salazar, 1998). BUT, I believe that the chart is representative of the Philippine demographic reality. Regarding the use of the term 'ethnic groups', ethnologists as well as anthropologists have already agreed on the use of the term ethno-linguistic to refer to the various groups like the Tagalog, Ilocano, etc., so I don't think that there's much problem-except maybe for the Visayans (regarding how to divide/group them). Matthewprc 3:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthewprc, we had a long discussion on the right term to use in the tambayan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TAMBAY#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity I hope you also share your thoughts. So far, people seem to agree that:
  1. As far as possible, not to lump together lowland Christianized Austronesian Filipinos
  2. Not to equate Filipino to lowland Christianized Austronesian Filipinos (this means Filipino is not defined by ethnicity but in terms of politics or history. As mentioned in the tambayan, if Oprah and Bush are equally Americans, then Ang Kiukok, Manny Pacquiao and Lucy Torres are equally Filipinos)
  3. Malay should be avoided (same reason why American Indian is inappropriate), (you are right) ethnic Filipino is misleading. Native Filipino is also not entirely correct, but maybe it is the best for now. In my opinion, it is better to use our ancient ethnic designations: Tagalog, Bisaya, Ilocano, etc.
I see no difficulty in the case of the Bisaya. It's an ethnic group. Cebuano is a linguistic/geographical/historical grouping. My friends in Cebu who are of Chinese or Hispanic descent do not think they are lesser Cebuanos than my friends of Bisaya descent.
Al-Andalus, the chart represents what most Filipinos think what Filipino means, and it is not something you could tell through genetics.--Nino Gonzales 14:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly i dont see why Malay should be avoided. Filipinos generally are of Malay stock. 2ndly if you want to get really technical about things then your graph is wrong. Because it has a huge circle representing "Hispanic" when if you check out the Hispanic page you will notice that even the small %1 of the population that may have Spanish ancestry, are not considered Hispanic. --Jandela 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Plan

If no one complains, I'll do the following once I have time:

Please join the discussion in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines#Clean-up --Nino Gonzales 01:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

First, this should only include statistics, NOT descriptions and histories. Second, "Ethnic Filipino" is B.S. What is "ethnic Filipino?" Tagalogs only? That should be modified into something else, such as Campampangans (sp?), Tagalogs, Bisayas (perhaps can further be split to Cebuanos, Ilonggos, etc.), the Moros and others. Howard the Duck 13:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The entire plan is fine. However, why not consider separating the Bisayans into Cebuanos, Warays, etc. They are separate ethnic groups from each other- scholars have agreed upon this. Their language is sufficiently different enough to warrant separation. Also, it has been studies that the Bicolano language is closer to the other Visayan languages than Waray is. Hence, if you cluster Bisayans into one giant group, you need to Bicolanos in your group (Since as a matter-of-fact, their language is closer to the 'Visayan languages). Romblomanon Visayans are even more distant to Warays than to Tagalogs. I think BIsayan is merely a geographical catchall term used for the various tribes of the Visayan islands. Also, lumping the Moros (Bangsamoro) is not a good idea, since the Maranaos, Maguindanaos, Tausugs, etc. have had their own cultures long enough to be considered independently.
That is a better idea although the explanations should not go into this article, they should go to the ethnic groups article. Also, we should agree on how the ethnic groups are to be classified. I'm not an expert on this so perhaps others can contribute. Also, can someone modify the Ethnic Filipinos part? Like substitute it with Malay or something else? Howard the Duck 16:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right; if we are talking about language, Visayans should be separated. However, if you are talking about ethnicity, they could fall under one category (according to its article, ethnicity is not just based on language). Shall we believe the scholars or the people themselves? What I know is brown Cebuanos (those who are not of Chinese or Spanish descent) call themselves Bisaya. Brown Ilongos call themselves Bisaya. Warays call themselves Bisaya. As well as the Aklanons, Capiznons, etc. I don't know why. They just do. And it was not invented by the Spaniards, nor the Philippine government--that I am sure of. Scholars from the foremost language institute, SIL, classify Waray under Bisayan. They don't classify Bicol under Bisayan. And it is not because the Waray call themselves Bisaya; the language of the Tausug are also classified under Bisaya, since it is very close to other Visayan languages, even if the Tausug do not consider themselves Bisaya. On Ethnic Filipino, I agree with Howard the Duck. We had a long discussion on this in Tambayan. And what came out was: 1) As far as possible, do not lump together the "ethnic Filipino", whatever that means (Why not use the ancient ethnic designations like Ilokano, Tagalog, Bikolano, Bisaya? They have worked for thousands of years...) 2)If you have to lump together low-land Austronesian-speaking Filipinos, use native Filipino (I do not agree with this, by the way). Malay maybe as incorrect as American Indian, but people get the point. That discussion has been archived: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_2#Filipino_is_beyond_ethnicity --Nino Gonzales 14:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Aetas are not descended from Austronesian-speaking migrants

Aetas are considered by anthropologists (such as Otley Beyer, Landa Jocano, Bellwood, as well as a hundred others) to be ethnically distinct from the other Filipinos. They are considered to be akin to the Andamanese. And furthermore, unless you are blind (not meant in a sarcastic way), or you haven't ventured far into Philippine interior, you should be able to see clearly the difference and distinction of an Austronesian-descended Filipino as well as the Negrito-descended Filipino (Aeta). Aetas just adopted the languages of their neighbors. In fact, one group of Aetas are shown to have one language-Katabaga, but this has been long extinct. Aetas and Filipinos are culturally and biologically different, and that, precisely, is why since the pre-Hispanic period (Mallat, 18th century), the indio (or Filipino) has been 'the mortal enemy of the Negrito'. You cannot claim Aetas as being Austronesians just becuase they adopted the languages of their Austronesian neighbors. In such case, you might as well classify Filipinos whose first language is English (plentiful in Metro Manila) as being Indo-European/Germanic.

This site discusses the origins of the Andamanese Islanders (who really resemble the negritos of the Philippines): http://www2.db.dk/pe/Andaman.htm (contains explicit pictures)

This site places the Andamanese islanders as related to Africans and confirms the origins of Negritos in the Andamanese islanders: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12478481

This suggests the possible affinity of Negritos with Australian aborigines: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=433923&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum

Reference: Ethnic groups of insular Southeast Asia / Frank M. Lebar, editor and compiler. Publication info. New Haven : Human Relations Area Files Press, c1975.

-- User:Matthewprc 10:36 23 February 2006 (UTC); 6:37 23 February 2006 (UTC +8)

Heterogeneity of the Filipino People

3.6%

I rephrased the sentence to make it clear that the claim is so far substantiated only by the Stanford study. However, it is not up to me as a WP editor to decide on the validity of the study.

Literacy

What does 15 and above can read and write mean??? is this true??? It should be 6 and above... I shoud change it -

Depreciation

How come there was much "depreciation" when comparing the 1818 census and the 1903 census? Could it be that the Americans overestimated the number of natives? Was the 1818 census done by the Spaniards or what? Or was it that the large number of mestizoa were concetrated in Luzon that's why when the Americans did their census, the proportion gradually dropped? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.55.205 (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Errors in Statistics section

The population is set at over 2 billion. A bit high, I think. Also, life expectancy seems to be wrong - average should be somewhere in the middle of men and women - when it is higher than it could be. Can someone please change these? Mjm1964 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Philippines Population estimates.

It seems that the CIA estimates are a bit off.

Current population growth:

CIA figure: 1.957%
National Statistics Office estimates: 1.95% (2005-2010), 2.04% (2000-2007)

Censuses by the Philippine Government:
2000 census: 76,498,735
2007 census: 88,574,614
2009 estimate: 92,226,600

Based on current population growth estimates as both the CIA and the Philippine government, it doesn't seem plausible that the Philippines has about 98 million people. An increase of 10 million people in two years using population growth projections is not a all likely.

Figures by CIA/US Department: Check under year
2000: 81,222,082
2007: 94,157,465
2009: 97,976,603

Estimates don't even match and it seems like weren't even fixed.

UN estimates: (Rounded off)
2000: 77,689,000
2009: 91,983,000

Current estimates match more closely to the National statistics of the Philippines. Elockid (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sample size of 28 vs. population of 90,000,000

I've moved the following text, recently added in this edit, here:

However, only 28 individuals from the Philippines were genotyped for the study, a sample size far below the minimum sample size needed to account for credible test results in a population of over 90 million individuals.

I'm no statistician and what stats training I have had is several decades behind me. However, as I recall, the relationship between population level and sample size is not as implied here (e.g., that larger populations need larger sample sizes for the same confidence level). I looked at the Sample size and Sampling (statistics) articles, but they gave me a headache. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Wtmitchell,
I honestly believe that you should try to learn about matters you ignore before deleting any passages, even if it gives you a "headache" to do so. Otherwise it looks as if you had adopted the point of view of deleting anything you either don't have the time to learn about or gives you a "headache" because it is too dense for your understanding.
Just by applying common sense you'll come to the conclusion that only 28 individuals genotyped out 90 million individuals, is far far below the minimum sample size needed to account for credible test results, but in any case, out of good faith, I will do the job for you of finding sources that explain what a credible sample size is, in a way that doesn't give you a headache to grasp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaelMinuesa (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Please don't ever link this to the Malay ethnic group article, this is not a Malaysia-related article, thank you. Zollerriia63 (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Reference

This article misused the Japanese reference "Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Research Centre for Japan (2006)" in giving the statistics regarding the religious affiliation of Filipinos. The section on "Religion" of the article about the Demographics of the Philippines states that the Christian (Protestants) in the Philippines are about 15%. However, the second table (fifth row) in the quoted Japanese reference (footnote 11) says that the Christian (Protestants) are only 1.8%; the Catholics are 71.5%, and those without religious beliefs are 10.9%.

The reference itself is not reliable very reliable.

Recommendation:

1. Check the data that are presented in this article. 2. Eliminate unreliable data. --94.83.253.145 (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Historical Demographics

http://books.google.com/books?id=67xO2hUwzasC&pg=PR12#v=onepage&q&f=false

06:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Fertility rate

http://opinion.inquirer.net/7691/indonesia-a-family-planning-model-for-the-philippines

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/asia-pacific/absence-of-effective-birth-control-adversely-affects-philippine-poor/1108774

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5263&Itemid=196

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-03/an-philippines-contraception-debate/4292800

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/21/world/resisting-birth-control-the-philippines-grows-crowded.html

Rajmaan (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion concerning content in this article

A discussion is taking place here which concerns some content of this article. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Population ratio

You should include the population ratio of men and women. Like if the population of the Phil is (approx) 105 Million people. what percentage of that are men and women.

Good idea - even if population statistics are never that reliable and especially so in the Philippines. Do the number of exported seafarers (typically male) balance the numbers of exported maids (typically female)? Do women have higher death rates due to multiple pregnancies? etc, etc... BushelCandle (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Demographics of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Demographics of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_the_Philippines/Archive_1&oldid=1176458762"