Talk:History of the Philippines/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

wha?

Is it just me, but why is there a phrase that read "i love cocks" in the second paragraph? please check... Wikiboy726 —Preceding comment was added at 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I wasn't aware that there was ever a land bridge to the Philippines. Maybe the people came by boat.

Gahhh!!! This history article is clearly written from the point of view of the North Americans (U.S.)... Can somebody re-write it (I don't have time)? The Philippine Revolutionary Movement needs to be included.

The article is not biased from the American point of view. It is, however, focusing on the American point of view as I don't have time to do everything at once. It quite clearly states that there was and is resistance amongst the Filipinos against the American hegemony. Vera Cruz


What is the difference between focusing on the APOV and being biased from the APOV (The one acronym Wikipedia really needs) ? I am going to rewrite some of the Post-World War II-History with special emphasis on CIA interventions. I think that all history between 1945 and 1986 should be revised -

> Protesting corruption > On June 22, 1962 officially lodged a claim over North Borneo, which was leased > by the British North Borneo Company from the Sultan of Sulu in 1888.

I think that this shows that this parts really need a cleanup. I would be happy if someone could help, since I am already focussing on the Huk and the CIA and plan to CIA-stuff to other articles as well. Turrican


Could this article show a background of Philippine Precolonial society like that with the babaylan?


The material in this article seems neutral enough for me. There is an selection bias that still needs to be counterbalanced by adding more history but don't see any violations of NPOV here that would require a rewrite. More history is needed - that is all. --mav


Add: Pre-5000 BCE -- Hominid hunters of the Liwanian culture Add: Duyong cave Add: Known voyages to Bogol Tobago from Itbayat

more to come 169.207.86.138 13:19, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Added: Nusuntao traders Added: Stone and shell flake tools Found a graphic, Image:Southeast asia.jpg which makes some of the History article's discussion of the prevailing currents in the South China Sea make more sense.169.207.86.51 00:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A sea-faring people, practiced secondary burial

The fact that the Indo-Malayan peoples were seafarers is related to the racial composition of the population of the island of Madagascar, and their belief in the divinity of the ancestors (like the Chinese). Thus the ancient practice of secondary burial for people surrounding the Indian Ocean seems not coincidental. 169.207.89.32 05:02, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FPOV

I think we should see the History of the Philippines throught FPOV since it is their history and for sure they know more and they will speak of the truth:

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/history/others.html

A Quote on the Spirit of Nationhood

"The Spirit of nationhood had its roots in the scattered towns of Philippine Society during the Spanish period. The Ilustrados, those elite people who had the chance to take advantage of education during the Spanish era, were the first voices of the Filipino masses. At first, the term Filipino referred only to the Creoles or Spanish Filipinos and the Spanish mestizos. Later the Chinese mestizos and the native elite who dominated the marks of the principalia appropriated the term Filipino to themselves. The term Filipino was then limited by property, education, and Spanish culture. The Ilustrados were the first to infuse the term Filipino to the inhabitants of the Philippines regardless of racial strains and social status. The first form of nationhood was first found in the expression in agitation for reforms. The principal propaganda effort was exerted in Spain in the hopes that when the Spanish government would be aware of what was happening in the colony, reforms might be possible.
Three groups formed the core of the propaganda movement. First there were a group of filibusteros including Españoles Filipinos and Spanish mestizos who had been banished to the Marianas during the crackdown on liberals in the wake of the Cavite mutiny in 1872. The second group was composed of young men who had been sent to Spain for their studies. Among them were Graciano Lopez Jaena, Marcelo H. Del Pilar, and Jose Rizal. The third group was composed of refugees who left the islands to escape persecution. The primary aim of the ilustrados was to secure for their own interest class participation in political rule and a greater share in economic benefits as a province of Spain. They failed to achieve their principal objective, which was that of prodding the Spanish government to reform the colonial administration. The propaganda failed to reach the masses of their countrymen; thus, they had minimal influence and for this reason there was hardly any continuity between the Propaganda and the Revolution. Several factors contributed to the ineffectiveness of the propaganda movement. Among them were the perennial lack of funds and the bickering among the propagandists themselves. For example, as a result of a misunderstanding between del Pilar and Jose Rizal, the latter stopped contributing to the La Solidaridad before it had completed two years of its existence. A few months later, Antonio Luna, who was partial to Rizal, also quit."

Taken from The Philippines: A Past Revisited by Renato Constantino, Chapter X: Revolution and Nationhood.

Facts: The Untold Mysteries of Philippine Revolution

Did you know that there are many untold mysteries, anomalies, and secrets in the history of the Philippines? Probably you don't or you don't even bother to learn them because, in elementary and high school, things were taught as simply as what the book says about heroes and events of the past. Students were only made to memorize important names, dates and places but were not taught the significance of these things to what we are as Filipinos today. The students were thus miseducated because the things that we must learn about these heroes and events were not yet clarified in our minds. All students, I think, including us of course, were miseducated by the teachings of our foreign colonizers. In this section, we've based our facts from works of Renato Constantino, a renowned historian in Philippine history who also participated in some of the events that happened, to help enlighten your spirit and understanding of what the learning of history is all about. This also tests your knowledge about how well you know the Philippines.

Let us start from the Entry of the Spaniards:

Did you know that the ilustrados were the first articulators of the revolution?

Based on what we've learned from our high school history teachers, the ilustrados, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Marcelo H. Del Pilar, Jose Rizal, and others, were those who had the opportunity to take advantage of the education system during the Spanish period. Also these ilustrados failed to reach the masses because of their class position and their limited understanding of the masses. The Ilustrados didn't have any trust on the abilities of the common people so the reforms they wanted did not materialize. They wanted to make the Philippines a province of Spain solely because they wanted more participation in the government and they wanted reforms only for their own economic self-interest.

Additional article

Did you know that the first 'Filipinos" were not pure filipinos but were creoles, Españoles-Filipinos, or the Spaniards born in the Philippines?

The term Filipino was first applied to the creoles and later to the Chinese mestizos and the native elite. This was opposed by the Ilustrados who applied the term to the inhabitants of the Philippines regardless of their class and social status.

Did you know that three groups composed the nucleus of the reforms known as the Propaganda movement?

These are the suspected filibusteros, including creoles and Spanish mestizoss who had been banished to the Marianas during the crackdown on liberals in the wake of Mutiny of 1872; the young men sent to Spain for their studies; and the refugees who left the islands to escape persecution.

Did you know that the first purely Filipino organization was the La Solidaridad organized in Barcelona on December 13, 1888?

Did you know that del Pilar and Rizal, two of the Philippine's most famous and active propagandists, had a misunderstanding resulting in the latter's withdrawal of his support for the La Solidaridad?

Did you know that Graciano Lopez Jaena ridiculed his colleagues in La Solidaridad when a pension from Manila supporters did not materialize, and that he devoted himself to fulfilling his ambition to be elected to the Cortes but without success?

Did you know why the Propaganda movement failed to unite the Filipino people?

It was because the Propagandists were writing in a language that the common masses did not understand. They wrote in Spanish instead of writing it in the Filipino lanuage!

Do you know the aims of Rizal's La Liga Filipina?

They were:

(1) to unite the whole archipelago into one compact, vigorous, and homogenous body;

(2) Mutual protection in every want and necessity;

(3) Defense against all violence and injustice;

(4) Encouragement of instruction, agriculture, and commerce; and

(5) Study and application of reforms.

Did you know that during the Spanish period, land rentals increased from year to year, and that social injustice was rampant in the rural areas?

Do you know who betrayed the Katipunan causing many of its members to be imprisoned and persecuted?

Answer: Teodoro Patiño, an employee of the Diario de Manila newspaper, when he revealed the Katipunan to father Mariano Gil, an Augustinian priest.

Did you know where the first real encounter between Spanish forces and the Katipunan took place?

It was in San Juan Del Monte.

Did you know that Bonifacio was tried and sentenced in a rigged trial by Aguinaldo's council for plotting Aguinaldo's death?

"The trial was truly a farce from the beginning up to the end. Considering that: all members of the council were Aguinaldo's men including not only Gen. Noriel but also Gen. Tomas Mascardo whom Bonifacio had earlier arrested in connection with the freeing of Spanish prisoners; second, Bonifacio's counsel, Placido Martinez, acted more like a prosecutor, going so far as to say that if a punishment worse than death was available, Bonifacio deserved it for plotting Aguinaldo's death; third, the court gave credence to the fantastic story of Lt. Col. Pedro Giron, a Bonifacio partisan turned state witness, who said that Bonifacio had given him ten pesos in advance to kill Aguinaldo in case the latter did not submit to Bonifacio's authority." (Constantino, Past Revisited p. 189)

The American Colonization

Did you know that in other countries, such as the United States, Russia, China, and Vietnam, their national hero is a leader of the war and revolution, while in the Philippines the National Hero is just a reformist?

Did you know that the Americans were the ones who chose Jose Rizal as our national hero?

This was because Rizal was a perfect example of a hero whom the masses can imitate, who embraces foreign rule. Also, Rizal was not born during the American period and, as stated by Constantino in his essay entitled "Veneration without Understanding", conservative ilustrados made up the Philippine commission which approved the laws making Rizal as the national hero.

(Tagalog naman tayo dahil Kano na 'to)

Batas bilang 137 na bumuo ng distritong politiko militar ng Morong na tinatawag na lalawigan gn Rizal bilang parangal sa pinakatanyag na tao sa buong kapuluan.

Batas Bilang 243 na nagpahintulot ng isang pambayang abuloy para sa pagtatayo ng isang bantayog bilang parangal kay Rizal sa Luneta, at

Batas Blg. 345 na nagtakdang ang anibersaryo ng kanyang kamatayan ay araw ng pagdiriwang.

Ito ay nagresulta sa pagkawala halos ng saysay ng ibang mga bayaning di man lang kilala ng mga tao.

Did you know that the Americans influence us in our everyday lives, from the clothes we wear today, to the language we speak?

Did you know that the things that happened during the American colonization in the Philippines did not reached the ears of the American people because President McKinley was then running for re-election?

Did you know that Nationalist expeditions to the United States are only cover-ups for pleasure trips?


Japanese Cruelty

Did you know that besides the death march there was also a death train ride for the prisoners of the war during the fall of Bataan?

Not only were our forefathers dehydrated and poisoned during the death march and death train ride but they were also imprisoned in a very small penal institution surrounded by a mosquito infested swamp.

Did you know that the Japanese also practiced cannibalism, like what happened in Auschwitz, Germany, where people ate people for food?


You forgot some things:

Corregidor.what about that? also,

Atas Pangulo 1081- Batas Militar.

Common language

>Did you know why the Propaganda movement failed to unite the Filipino people?

>. It was because the Propagandists were writing in a language that
. >the common masses did not understand. They wrote in Spanish instead
. >of writing it in the Filipino lanuage!

Was Tagalog as ubiquitous during the Spanish period as it is today?For example would a Cebuano during the Spanish period have understood a Tagalog speaker(or vice versa)? Remember there was no TV then to propagate Tagalog. Spanish was definitely a good lingua franca during those days as English (and Tagalog) is today.--Jondel 13:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

C'mon

I sincerely doubt either the Nazis or Japanese ATE Jews or Filipinos during WWII. Prove it. (the turning Jews into soap claims have been debunked, so don't go there!) --Daxtox 02:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've read war accounts of Japanese soldiers who've eaten fellow Japanese when food was scarce.--Jondel 04:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

University of Santo Tomas

Anyone familiar with this university and its history, please offer your opinions at Talk:University of Santo Tomas, regarding a long slow-motion edit war. -- Curps 00:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


1511

Magellan and the Portugues may have been in the Philippines or Mindanao as early as 1511 or even earlier and not the purported 1521. They 've reached as far as the spice islands and thailand. Although Magellan never officially recorded it. Thus Magellan may have actually circumnavigated the world upon arriving to the Philippines.--Jondel 00:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


Libertirian / Shakesperian like - POV statement poems

To: Grimferrer! Just wondering? What's with the John Crawfurd and Federic Henry Sawyer - Libertirian / Shakesperian - poem statements about "Indians / Savages in The Philippine Archipelago" and "Most Corrupt Government in Europe", doing in the History of Philippine Section. Dude!, this is not a "Literature section". If you want!, you can move that poem - Statements into the John Crawfurd and Sawyer articles or in the Philippine Literature. The term "Savages" and "Corrupt Government" is a typical old-saying by: Americans, who make Biased opinions against native peoples, ethnic nationalities, politics and cultural issues. From what i'm seeing, it's a typical statement made from an American point of view. Were not surprised? Oh well? - :)Gonzalo (UTC), 7:45, October 3, 2005.

== kindly give the dates in 16th-17th century in philippine history

kindly give the dates in 16th-17th century in philippine history

Man, the last Japanese WW2 soldier surrendered in 1974?!? Can someone plz check this? 1944? (Hpetwe 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Please read the article concerning about the last japanese to surrender. It will explain why that man only surrendered 30 years after World War 2. Thanks. (Flamegod)

Is there a source which clarifies the time of arrival of the Austronesian-speakers in the Philippines because I doubt that they came in 200 B.C.E. since it has been pointed out that the Lapita culutre ( 1600-1200 B.C.E.) may be related with Taiwanese peoples. See http://www.timor-leste.gov.tl/AboutTimorleste/history.htm http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1840.htm (History section)- Isao

COULD ANYONE ADD A SECTION FOR THE PHILIPPINE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD THE PERIOD WHICH CAUSED THE NATIONHOOD OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE VERY REASON WHY WE HAVE THIS ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! thank you <(*_')> -Isao

Colonization by Spain (1565-1815)

"On April 27, 1565, the Spanish attacked the defiant Tupas, son of Humabon, and the latter was made to sign an agreement, effectively placing the Philippines under Spain."
Does "the latter" mean Tupas, or Humabon? Someone made an ambiguity rather than repeat a name. See elegant variation re this unwise practice. I replaced "the latter" with "Tupas". I am not afraid of repeating a name. Anthony Appleyard 06:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

The section "World War II Veteran Benefits" has no sources, so I've put a tag for that section. It lacks internal links too. Maybe once some sources are provided, discussion can begin on the quality of the section. Some of this I had never heard before, so I'm unsure myself where to find sources for some of this information. Help would be greatly appreciated. Also, it appears that this article in general could use more sources, especially embedded ones. There's only 3 embedded sources in this lengthy article. Ufwuct 03:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Colonization by Spain (1565-1815)

An anon user (203.87.168.213) added a comment directly into the text. Thought it'd be cruel to revert without placing that comment here --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-30 08:41 (UTC)

On 1565-04-27, the Spanish attacked the defiant Tupas, son of Humabon, and Tupas was made to sign an agreement, effectively placing the Philippines under Spain. (****** please correct this paragraph. tupas could not have ceded the philippines to spain because there was no philippine nation to begin with during that time. the philippines was inhabited by tribal-states such as that of the tagalogs, the cebuanos, the mactans, and so on. but no single datu/chieftain/raja, ruled the entire philippine archipelago until revolutionary efforts began in 1898. tupas can only cede his cebu kingdom which during those times represents the cebuano nation. afterlegaspi conquered cebu, his group proceeded to manila and conquered raja lakandula, raja suliman, and raja matanda of the tagalog kingdoms**** thanks, from dominus)

section 5 5.1 and 5.2.

these sections need work; they are not in chronological order (or any other obvious order) and have duplicated material Thanks Hmains 03:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done some work to merge these sections and remove the duplicate material, but it's still a messy mess. I'll get around to cleaning it up... Coffee 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Article split

This article is 80KB and it should be split into smaller articles, with the main article trimmed down to about 32KB and only giving the important details. For example, see how History of the United States gives an overview, and how it has eleven subarticles that go into detail about specific periods. For the Philippines, I suggest we split into five subarticles: (1) pre 1521, (2) 1521-1898, (3) 1898-1946, (4) 1946-1986, and (5) 1986-present. Comments? --Coffee 14:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the divisions although what this articvle lacks is a nice lead. --Howard the Duck 14:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Except maybe there should be a separate era for the Marcos regime - 1965-1986? Not a huge deal, but it makes sense to me, I think. Also, for further guidance, there's a wonderful series on Philippine history published by Reader's Digest called Kasaysayan: The Story of the Filipino People; each volume is divided to a particular time period. --Chris S. 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go ahead splitting up the article. I was considering making a separate article for the Marcos years... perhaps if the 1946-1986 article gets to be too long. Coffee 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've split off the Marcos years (1965-1986) into a separate article. Now that we have these specific articles for details, I'm trying to shave away the details from the main article and get it down to about 32-40KB. Coffee 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion..

I think we should split the article very simple:

  1. Pre-Spanish Colonial Era
    1. Pre-colonial Society
    2. Barter trade, etc.
  2. Spanish Colonial Era
    1. Conquests for Spain
    2. Colonial Government
    3. Colonial Economy
    4. Filipino society during the colonial era
    5. Challenges against the Spanish rule
    6. Spanish Influences
  3. Nationalism and War for Independence
    1. The Philippine Propaganda Movement
      1. Rizal
    2. Philippine Revolution of 1896
      1. Bonifacio
    3. Spanish-American War in the Philippines
    4. The First Philippine Republic
      1. Aguinaldo
  4. American Colonial Era
    1. Philippine-American War
    2. American Insular Government in the Philippines
    3. The Commonwealth
      1. Quezon
      2. Osmeña
  5. The Japanese Occupation
    1. World War II in the Philippines
    2. The Second Philippine Republic
      1. Laurel
  6. The Third Philippine Republic
    1. Roxas
    2. Quirino
    3. Magsaysay
      1. Huk Movement
    4. Garcia
    5. Macapagal
  7. The Marcos Years (The New Society)
    1. F. Marcos
      1. Ang Bagong Lipunan (The New Society)
      2. Imelda Marcos
      3. The Fourth Philippine Republic
    2. Ninoy Aquino
    3. EDSA Revolution
  8. Post-Marcos Era (Return of Democracy)
    1. Aquino
    2. Ramos
    3. Estrada
    4. Macapagal-Arroyo

thats all.. --Glenncando 11:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be section (small and referring to the main article) on the Spanish American War. Either at the end of the Spanish Section or the beginning of the American section or in between the two. I think the last option would be best since the War was a major break point in Philippine history, and because it was rather unexpected: nothing in Philippine history led to this war, it came about because of American Spanish conflicts in Cuba.
Also the current article mentions the '4th Republic' Should this be a section above some of these other sections?

thanks Hmains 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm leaning towards putting a Spanish-American War subsection at the end of the Spanish section, though a section in between might work too.
And if there's a Marcos section, I think the "4th Republic" can just be a subsection of it since it just lasted from the time Marcos lifted martial law in 1981 until Marcos' ouster in 1986. Coffee 17:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Recent archeological discoveries proved that Philippines has notable rich prehistoric legacy. Found relics and artifacts of our ancestors that goes beyond the time of Negritos and Aitas proved that Filipinos' ancient Austronesian culture thrived and evolved simultaneously with the rest of the world. I think, it's justifiable to include in the History of the Philippines a sizable space for Pre-historic Era to instill a sense of pride in the present and future generations.

pls. consider. --Mercene

History section in the Philippines article

Can somebody rewrite it to make it condensed? It is very long. And we'd have to keep it NPOV. --Howard the Duck 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. :) --Noypi380 13:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced info

I've reverted a few edits to the article because they added large blocks of content without supplying a source, and some of the additions were a bit questionable. I'm trying to do my best to keep the article verifiable, accurate, and well-referenced, so if ever you want to add significant pieces of content, please provide a link to the source.

I also removed the content because it seemed to go into excessive detail for this article, which is already quite long (it was nearly 50KB.. the style guide for article size says 32KB is generally ideal). If you want to add more detailed information, please consider adding it to one of the detail articles like History of the Philippines (1965-1986). Thanks! Coffee 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Images

  • I reverted back the image, because they are properly Licence tag now. Ramirez 05:00 , 4 September, 2006 (UTC)

"atrocities were committed by both sides..."

Ref 14 is used, which is US official point of view, and does not provide any further data. "200,000 civilians died" -- obviously most (if not 100%) were from the native population. How many of the US "civlians" were killed in those "atrocities"? What is the definition of an "atrocity" here?

How can this blatantly sloppy article be selected as a "featured" one?

The complete absence of analyzing Gen McArthur's role as a US imperialist agent and terrorist renders this article very "biased" indeed.

ia

US imperialist agent and terrorist - these comments are totally subjective and POV. This article is not a platform for leftwing political views. Where necessary alternative points of view are presented, but please stick to the facts. Walton monarchist89 11:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we add a discussion of the definition of "Philippine Islands"?

It sounds trivial, but the definition of what was considered the Philippine Islands varied throughout history, depending upon what land was considered Spanish territory. I took Professor Michael Salman's Philippine History course at UCLA, and he teaches that "the Philippines" at one time included parts of Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

Yes.Please add the history of the definition of Philippine Islands and the History of the territory of the Philippine Islands. Did you know that Texas was once called Nueva Filipinas and was supposed to be added the Philippines when many Latin American countries were gaining independence? Also heard that Marianas and Guam were supposed to be Philippine Territory.--Jondel 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Rant at Vera Cruz

This discussion thread is proof that any statements about the Philippines must consider the source. Vera Cruz, I would bet a substantial amount that you are less than 45 years old. This means that you were taught history from textbooks that were written just as Imelda Marcos ordered them rewritten. You are just as polarized towards a Filipino point of view as other contributors are towards a Spanish or American point of view. If you have been to Mactan where Magellen landed then you have seen the three historical markers there (if they haven't been removed). The Spanish marker states "This is where Magellen discovered the Philippines". The American marker states, "This is where Magellen landed in the Philippines". The third marker is from the Philippine Historical Society stating, "This is where Magellen invaded the Philippines".

I am an American but I was raised most of my life in the Philippines. I speak several dialects fluently. My education is completely Filipino. I lived in Basilan, Zamboanga, Davao, Tacloban, Ormoc, Cebu, Naga, Legaspi, Manila, Tagatay, Cavite, Paranaque,Angeles and Baguio.

I worked for many companies. I started the GM dealership network, designed the PCMP, Metro Manila Taxi Program and was on the team that convinced the World Bank to come to the Philippines. Cplleges still use case studies about some of my marketing plans for San Miguel, Coke and Colgate. I developed the Filipino Labor Export Program and took the first major skilled labor crew to the Middle East. I worked on many economic development programs for President Marcos.

I am 59 and I was alive during a time when some of the key players of the Philippines after WWII were still around. I had the opportunity not only to meet them but to document their stories.

So, am I right about your age? Can you deterine my name? Could you please tell me what you know about Harry Stonehill? Where does the Filipino nickname "Boy" came from? Where did the family name "Cruze" originate? Can you define five distinct Filipino sociological characteristics like "utang na laoob"?

Not to single you out but your comment adds nothing to the accurracy of Filipino history and it detracts from the credibility of other Filipino contributors.


Historically innacurate

There are some gross misrepresentations of the islands, and the Moros, which are not mentioned in detail. The Spanish never "owned" the Philippines, and the Americans never easily handled the Moros in open field, or in guerilla warfare until later in the war.

Extensive reference should be made of these people as they made up the vast majority of culture and population in the Philippines until they were almost completely wiped out by the Americans.

Mention should be made over the US adoption of the 38 special, and then reintegration of the 45 colt which was a direct result of the War with the Moros, and their bandaging of Judamentaros which were relatively unkillable except with a headshot by a 38 special, this problem was solved with the reintegratio nof the 45 after a short period of time.

Mention should be made about the popular, and typically mis-represented “army officer who dipped bullets in pig’s blood and shot natives.” This story is actually an urban legend that is true, but not how most people know of it, and comes from the history books and facts regarding the war with America in the Philippines.

I suggest people start reading their history books, specifically regarding the Moro people which are now almost nonexistent, and inarguably the best and most fearless pirates in the history of the world. For your main page on the website, this has a lot historically that is correct, but a LOT that is historically inaccurate. I highly suggest reading this novel, written almost a century ago, its not surprising a lot of people know little about the true history as its been out of print for some time, but a highly accurate reference.

http://www.bakbakan.com/swishkb.html

I hate to break it to the spoon-fed college students by professors who draft-dodged and like using the words atrocity, but these attrocities are clearly and concisely documented in journals and history books which are no longer read. Find these and you'll have yourself a good article.

I wish I had time to edit this myself, but unfortunately I can only point others in the direction thye need to look to make this a quality accurate article.


--Aifilaw 14:55(CST), 20 October 2006

Footnote 33

I'm not sure what it is, but Footnote 33 is screwed up. Someone who knows cite.php better than I do should fix it. --Descendall 07:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it. --Descendall 07:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is June 12, 1898 still being celebrated as Independence Day?

Just an observation. The date of Philippine Independence is recognized as June 12,1898. However, I would like to point out the following items from this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Revolution and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Declaration_of_Independence

Here's what happened:

1. The revolutionaries were exiled. Aguinaldo and co. were sent off to HK with 400K pesos in their pockets after negotiations with Spain.

2. Spaniards claim peace in the country. Revolution is ended.

3. Americans bring the Spanish-American war to Manila Bay. Dewey wins the battle. Spain is severely weakened, but no Manila was not swarmed by americans. No major reinforments sent in by Spain.

4. US gets Aguinaldo to come back. (not a scenario where the Revolution actually proactively strikes while the iron is hot) Holding a shaky alliance with the US (The enemy of my enemy is my friend) Aguinaldo does the dirty work of liberating all the other provinces.

5. Aguinaldo conquers almost every province EXCEPT MANILA. During that time Manila was the largest concentration of Spanish forces, with the provinces controlled mainly by the Catholic Church (usually one spanish friar per area) and civil guards (Filipinos). So technically, he didn't kick out Spain. Still, he declares independence from Spain.

6. Spain cedes the Philippines to the US in the Treaty of Paris. US govt controls manila. Aguinaldo is now unsure about his former allies as the enemy of his enemy became friends with his enemy.

7. US sparks the Filipino-American war. Conveniently, Aguinaldo has "united" the country. The US captures Aguinaldo and makes him pledge allegiance to the US.

______________________

So why declare June 12 as independence day? Clearly, there never really was a government running already. Nor was there any major accomplishment because the Spaniards were actually leaving because of the Spanish-American war, and not because of any united effort to kick them out.

I believe the Philippines has never really gained its independence through revolutions. It was liberated from Spain by this serendipity, an liberated from Japan by the Americans.

Among other inaccuracies, there was still lots of active resistance going on even after the truce. The revolution never really ended as you put it. Uthanc 07:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is, largely, a question of perspective. On June 12, 1898, members of Aguinaldo's revolutionary government declared the independence of the Philippines (the proclamation was read by a certain Don Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista). The declaration outlined certain key events in terms of the development and emergence of the Philippine "nation," and recognized the American aid the Philippine revolution had (as immortalized in the Philippine flag, which bears the red, white, and blue of the American flag). A convention was held in Malolos, Bulacan, and a constitution was drafted and ratified. Arguably there was, at this point, a de facto government. Naturally, the Spanish government cannot be expected to recognize this revolutionary government, which is why it still ceded the Philippines via the Treaty of Paris. Hence, the big question facing Aguinaldo's revolutionary government when the Americans received the Philippine Islands via the Treaty of Paris. The tension was broken when the war between the Philippine revolutionary government and the United States colonial forces began. Here's where historians diverge: some American historians refuse to call it the Philippine-American "War," because war implies a sense of equality between the opposing parties, at least insofar as sovereignty is concerned. They insisted on calling it the "Philippine Insurrection," since it was, arguably, the uprising of frustrated American subjects who had no power of their own. Philippine historians are practically unanimous in calling it the Philippine-American war, because of the insistence that the Philippines was an independent nation-state which was colonized by the United States.
The interesting question here, of course, is how we can define the independence. American documents (or propaganda, depending on whom you ask) show that the United States did in fact take cognizance of the occurences in Malolos, and of the Filipinos' (who had emerged eventually as a "nation," albeit perhaps not quite a "state,") desire for independence and sovereignty, which they promised to cede when the Philippines was ready. Hence America's recognition of Philippine sovereignty in July 1946, after the liberation from Japan.
So again, this is largely a question of perspective. As far as the Philippines is concerned, its independence began on June 12, 1898. The independence it gained in 1946 was something it was long entitled to. Rmcsamson 08:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am just wondering. How can this discussion help improve this article? --bluemask (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest edit: International Date Line

Is it fair to include a reference to a concept which did not yet exist in Magellan's time? Or does there need to be a statement about isochronous time? Ancheta Wis 12:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Article

--"Arik the Hawaiian Tee Guy" 22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)I found this article to be very accurate and helpful in my Philippine History Report, I see no Discrepencies.

Please confirm the amount mentioned.....

...Spain was forced in the negotiations to hand over the Philippines to the U.S. in exchange for US$20,000,000.00, which the U.S. later claimed to be a "gift" from Spain... . ISN'T IT TOO HIGH? AS FAR AS I COULD REMEMBER IT WAS P20,000.00 IT'S WORTH A FORTUNE WAY BACK 1890'S. DURING THAT TIME PEOPLE RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 3 PESOS/MONTH SALARY. YOU CAN BUY A LOT FOR MORE OR LESS THAN 50 PESOS ONLY. KINDLY DOUBLE CHECK THE DETAILS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.175.253 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

See Reference #11 in the article (cited as a supporting source for that claim) Also see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/spain/sp1898.htm -- note Article III. -- Boracay Bill 03:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please confirm the amount mentioned.....

58.69.175.253 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)MAYUMI58.69.175.253 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)...Spain was forced in the negotiations to hand over the Philippines to the U.S. in exchange for US$20,000,000.00, which the U.S. later claimed to be a "gift" from Spain... . ISN'T IT TOO HIGH? AS FAR AS I COULD REMEMBER IT WAS P20,000.00 IT'S WORTH A FORTUNE WAY BACK 1890'S. DURING THAT TIME PEOPLE RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 3 PESOS/MONTH SALARY. YOU CAN BUY A LOT FOR MORE OR LESS THAN 50 PESOS ONLY. KINDLY DOUBLE CHECK THE DETAILS.

See Reference #11 in the article (cited as a supporting source for that claim) Also see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/spain/sp1898.htm -- note Article III. -- Boracay Bill 03:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Succesion of false statements in the section "Decline of Spanish rule"

I can't understand how an article that has so big errors easily to spot can have featured state. Take a look on this:

Spanish rule on the Philippines was briefly interrupted in 1762, when British troops invaded and occupied the islands as a result of Spain's entry into the Seven Years' War. The Treaty of Paris of 1763 restored Spanish rule and in 1764 the British left the country fearing another costly war with Spain. The brief British occupation weakened Spain's grip on power and sparked rebellions and demands for independence.[8]

Great Britain NEVER occupied the Philippines, it occupied Manila. Everyone who has access to a map can notice that the Philippines are far larger that their capital. Thus, Britain didn't occupied the country nor restored it to Spain in order to avoid a supposed costly war. They just abandoned a city in the other side if the world and surrounded by enemy teritory that they couldn't held in the long term. What the article says is like saying that Britain occupies now the entire Iberian Peninsula just because she owns Gibraltar. Ridiculous.

I agree that the present article text does not accurately reflect the info presented in the source cited to support the article text. It appears to me that the words "the islands" should be changed to read "Manila". -- Boracay Bill 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about the last part? What rebellions? How was Spain's position weakened? In the 1760s there weren't independentist movements in mainland Latin America so you can imagine how many where in the far and less developed Philippines. Spain didn't have a problem in the island till the 1890s, when the ilustrado class was enough connected with the rest of the world due to the new developments in sailing, like the shortening of the sea routes caused by the Suez canal (a fact that the own article later claims as well, incredibly). The only difference left by the brief British occupation of Manila was that the Spanish authorities were forced to arm the filipinos in order to have more men destined to contend the British in he capital and don't permit them to advance inland. But it's very dubious if that decission had some real impact in the birth of a then unknown filipino nationalism.

The cited supporting source expands on that as follows: "Spanish prestige suffered irreparable damage because of the defeat at British hands. A number of rebellions broke out, of which the most notable was that of Diego Silang in the Ilocos area of northern Luzon. In December 1762, Silang expelled the Spanish from the coastal city of Vigan and set up an independent government. He established friendly relations with the British and was able to repulse Spanish attacks on Vigan, but he was assassinated in May 1763. The Spanish, tied down by fighting with the British and the rebels, were unable to control the raids of the Moros of the south on the Christian communities of the Visayan Islands and Luzon. Thousands of Christian Filipinos were captured as slaves, and Moro raids continued to be a serious problem through the remainder of the century. The Chinese community, resentful of Spanish discrimination, for the most part enthusiastically supported the British, providing them with laborers and armed men who fought de Anda in Pampanga."

The Spanish-American war began in 1898 after the USS Maine, sent to Cuba in connection with an attempt to arrange a peaceful resolution between Cuban independence ambitions and Spanish colonialism, exploded and sank in Havana harbor.

Another invention again. The USS Maine wasn't sent to Havana to mediate anything. Its only official purpose was to protect US citizens and property in the city from a war that actually had ended the year before (1897). Then, the ship *magically* exploded and the United States used it as an excuse to declare war on a severely weakened Spain by the simultaneous conflicts in Cuba and the Philippines. Everyone smart enough could think for a moment that it was actually part of a deliberate plan to excuse an oportunistic US declaration of war that would happen anyway, but that would probably vulnerate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Still, there are no reasons to say that the Maine was part of any happy and disinterested peacemaking process, in paper or in reality.--Menah the Great 02:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This source backs you up on the mission of the USS Maine, saying: "When pro-Weyler forces in Havana instigated riots in January 1898, Washington became greatly concerned for the safety of Americans in the country. The administration believed that some means of protecting U.S. citizens should be on hand. On 24 January, President McKinley sent the second class battleship USS Maine from Key West to Havana, after clearing the visit with a reluctant government in Madrid."
Your suggestion about the sinking ("Everyone smart enough could think for a moment that it was actually part of a deliberate plan to excuse an oportunistic US declaration of war that would happen anyway") is a real stretch, IMHO. The Maine exploded and sank in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898, causing the deaths of 268 men. The Court of Inquiry report dated March 21, 1898 (over a month after the sinking), concluded that the sinking resulted from the explosion of a mine situated under the bottom of the ship at about frame 18, and somewhat on the port side of the ship. On April 25 (over two months after the sinking of the Maine), Congress declared that a state of war between the United States and Spain had existed since April 20 (later changed to April 21). Not relevant to events at the time, but providing interesting hindsight, this source reports that a technical review done in 1976 concluded that the damage caused to the ship was inconsistent with the external explosion of a mine. The most likely cause, they speculated, was spontaneous combustion of coal in the bunker next to the magazine. -- Boracay Bill 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reforms

What were the reforms of the Kilusang Propagandista that were obtained from Spain? - 203.87.129.111 11:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on History 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes to lead section

This edit made some changes to the lead section. I think that the tightening up of the the lead section by elimination of details which are covered later on in the article. I disagree with the replacement of "However" with "Despite American promises to the Filipino revolutionaries". I have reverted this, reasoning as follows:

  1. AFAICT, it is disputed whether or not such promises were made and, if they were, who made the promises any by what authority.
  2. If the claimed promises are to be mentioned in the lead section, or anywhere in this article, the fact of the dispute about those promises needs to be mentioned as well.

Some details about the points in dispute can be seen in Philippine_Revolution#American_Intervention. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of two edits by 121.127.7.68

I've reverted two recent unexplained anonymous edits.

The first would have changed a long-established section name from American territorial period (1898–1946) to American rule (1900–1946). That might arguable have some merit, but the initial sentence of the section speaks of events prior to the advent of American rule.

The second changed that initial sentence of the section from "Filipinos initially saw their relationship with the United States as that of two nations joined in a common struggle against Spain." to "The Filipinos initially sought the support of the United States in their struggle for secession from Spain.", leaving the cite of Lacsamana 1990, p. 135 in place unchanged. I don't happen to have that book, but I suspect that if page 135 did support the earlier assertion, it probably does not support the edited assertion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

lv:Filipīnu vēsture

Please, can somebody add lv:Filipīnu vēsture. I can't do it. Thank you! --Treisijs (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary

$antander, if you are genuine, please get your dictionary out and use it before you "change words". The coat of arms goes on the standard (flag), not on the country. Gubernatoria (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of the Philippines

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "encarta":

  • From Philippines: Steinberg, David Joel (2007). "Philippines". Encarta.
  • From Palawan: MSN Encarta: Palawan. Accessed September 05, 2008.
  • From Manila: MSN Encarta: Manila. Accessed September 06, 2008.
  • From Communism: Colton, Timothy J. (2007). "Communism". Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the creators of AnomieBOT for this. I couldn't find this in Encarta so I've replaced that Ref with a Ref citing an alternative supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos in the British Rule section

Those photos is nowhere near to what actually happened... its more like self-promotion and I would like to suggest for its deletion peads (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, since the Philippine government sign in the photo says the postern is the one which Simón de Anda y Salazar used to escape Fort Santiago with half the treasury, so as to organise and promote resistance to the official surrender of the Spanish Philippines to the British. I suppose you could be right that the Philippine government is promoting itself since it owns the fort and the postern and charges an entrance fee there. Gubernatoria (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the photos should be deleted. Perhaps replacement photos without the young man featured in these could be reinserted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh... As regards historical accuracy, I've added a cite to the article supporting the general background. As far as the details go, I think we should follow WP:AGF unless and until a reliable source refuting the details asserted in the sign can be cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Idea accepted. Depersonalised photo inserted in lieu. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Aztec mercenaries? Kind of biased dont you think? In legitimate encyclopedias like World Book, Britanica, etc. I've never encountered articles giving to much adjective to a noun such as this article in wikipedia. Spaniards are not called mercenaries and natives/aborigines are not called barbarians.

References

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with six cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Wikipedia:FAR#History_of_the_Philippines (also at Wikipedia:FAR#History_of_the_Philippines/Archive1/) and did the following following on some (not all) of the bullet points there.
  • Replaced the dead link with a WikiCite archive link
  • The dablink is to Central Executive Committee. I think that is useful as a dablink and is preferable to a redlink to Central Executive Committee (Philippines).
  • {{vc}} tagged refs 16, 22, 29, 51. I see that refs 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, 34, already have VC tags.
  • Changed the single instance of "recognise" to "recognize".
  • Added ref after last sentence of the Administration of Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) section.
  • Tagged last sentence of the first paragraph of the Martial law section {{cn}}.
  • Second para of Fourth Republic section only has two sentences; first one has a Ref. CN'd the second one.
  • Regularized (Norling 2005:284) by moving full citation to References section. Tagged the page citation {{fv}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Section British occupation (1762-1764) far too long

I am removing most of the text in this section for several reasons:

1- It is exact copy of part of the article to be found at: British occupation of the Philippines.

2- It is extremely long, it takes even more space than other far more important events in Filipino History, such as the Philippine Revolution or the Philippine-American War.

3- Those two years of British occupation of Manila had little or no effect whatsoever in the History of the Philippines, and therefore it makes no sense dedicating so much space to it. It's more about

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


Spanish rule during the 19th Century

I am reinstated a previous version perfectly referenced and that had been deleted without any valid justification

Here are the references, in case someone wants to check them out:

[1]

[2]}}

[3]}}

[4]

[5] [6]

There is a section afterward that explains the reasons that led to the insurrection, none of them having anything to do with the treatment of most of the population, the economy or the education system.

It has also been stated that the Revolution would have not prospered if US military aid was not given to the rebels, as most of the population was on Spain's side. The Taft commission, for example, said that there were more people killed by Aguinaldo than in more than 3 centuries of Spanish rule.

If someone feels inclined to mass-delete a large part of a section due to a lack of understanding in their part of the issue at hand, please consult first and we'll take the time to point you out to the right sources that validate the content.

Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Updates and additional material

The Wikipedia entry on the history of the Philippines is begrudgingly short. I am not seeing the usual references and history textbooks that we used during high school and college here in the Philippines. The Philippine National Historical Society has been holding annual conferences and publishing journals that have recently uncovered details regarding local Philippine history, especially during Spanish colonial times. Perhaps we can use updated references vis-a-vis old historical sources (they seem to muddle history instead of shedding light). havagut 08:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havagut (talk • contribs)

Callao Man

When Callao Man discovered in 2007. It replace Tabon Man as oldest human remains in the Philippines, please note articles related to Callao Man to avoid confusions and spreading false informations...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Callao Man's identity is still very much debatable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
local and foreign archaeologist already proved that Callao man is a human remain when they test it on different examinations, so why it is debatable?...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Research by Luyt

This article is the topic of a paper by information studies professor Brendan Luyt of Nanyang Technological University: “The inclusivity of Wikipedia and the drawing of expert boundaries: An examination of talk pages and reference lists”, as referenced in the Wikimedia Research Newsletter for August 2012. --LA2 (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Quickfail GA nomination

Munoz on metallurgy

I didn't see my revert as anything denigrating. We should use archaeological sources for archaeological statements. And what does "was said" mean? Unnamed people used to say it? Even "It is said" isn't acceptable IMHO. Doug Weller (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Denigrate" is much stronger than the shade of meaning I was after in that edit summary. That was clearly the wrong word to use. I don't know how I came to use it -- probably in a rush, but that's no excuse. My bad.
Anyhow, I've added another supporting source which is probably better. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. That's ok, it seemed atypical for you. Doug Weller (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I've had a couple of atypical weeks recently. It probably resulted from that. My bad. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Aztecs

A couple of edits caught my eye. First this one made a very significant change to cite-supported content without giving an explanation, then this one deleted the paragraph with that content and the supporting citation saying, "No evidence that aztecs influenced the philippines, but rather vice versa". The content and the supporting cite had been inserted back in 2009 by this edit. The supporting source cited was an article in a major Philippine newspaper, but the link provided to the online article is now a dead link. An archived copy of the article shows that it was written by a well known Philippine historian. A look at the content of that article, however, failed to turn up any support for the content regarding the Aztecs added to this Wikipedia article by that 2009 edit. The removal of content and of the source cited in support seems justified, but not for the reason given. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Ma-i

I have partially reverted this edit, removing the unexplained and unsupported insertion of Bay, Laguna as a possible alternative location. The supporting source cited in the article says in part, "There is no reason to doubt that Mai—of Mayit— is Mondoro, for Mait was the old name for the island when the Spaniards arrived, and that name is still known to the its hill tribes and fishermen from neighboring islands." If Bay, Laguna as an alternative location is supported by reliable sources, reinsert this bit and cite the supporting sources. If this is done, some clarification explaining the differences between sources probably ought to be added. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on History 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Delgado Criado 1994, p. 508
  2. ^ John Bowring, "Travels in the Philippines", p. 18, London, 1875
  3. ^ Frederic H. Sawyer, "The inhabitants of the Philippines", pp. 139-139, London, 1900
  4. ^ Jan Lahmeyer (1996). "The Philippines: historical demographical data of the whole country". Retrieved 2003-07-19.
  5. ^ Voz de Galicia (1898). "CENSOS DE CUBA, PUERTO RICO, FILIPINAS Y ESPAÑA. ESTUDIO DE SU RELACION". Retrieved 2010-12-12.
  6. ^ NationMaster (2010). "GDP per capita in 1900 by country. Definition, graph and map". Retrieved 2010-12-12.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Philippines/Archive_1"