Talk:Visayans

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article Move

Pictures Needed!

Hello! Hope you could help by putting some pictures. These might look good on the article: 1. Geopolitical Map of the Visayas 2. Linguistic Map of Binisaya-speaking areas 3. The baptism of Rajah Humabon (that painting in Sto. Nino Church) 4. The Sto. Nino 5. Pedro Calungsod 6. Graciano Lopez-Jaena 7. Leon Kilat 8. Gen. Maxilom 9. Lapu-lapu killing Magellan 10. Sergio Osmena 11. Carlos Garcia --Nino Gonzales 16:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dubious statements

  • usage of Binisaya

Hi, the statement below: The Bisaya all refer to their respective languages as Binisaya. Binisaya literally means "the way of the Bisaya" and is used to refer to bisaya-style cooking and indigenous herbal medicine, aside from the languages. ...is dubious. I speak Bisaya (Cebuano). I can't recall anyone calling our native tonque as Binisaya. It's simply Bisaya (accent to the last syllable). 2) Maybe it means "the way of the Bisaya" but to my ears and to my co-Bisaya acquantances it sounds more like a made-up language (in the past tense) literally "being Bisayaned". Something like Tagalog becoming "Tinagalog".

Hi! May I ask where you learned Cebuano? There are many variants, some of which may not have the "in" infix. Other usages of this infix in the "way" sense are: Binata (chidish), Binayot (in a gay manner), Binoang (foolish), Ininsik (in a Chinese way or the Chinese language). The past tense sense of the infix "in" is from Tagalog, I think. E.g., kinuha (kuha), kinain (kain), kinulong (kulong), kinidnap (kidnap), giniling (giling)...--Nino Gonzales 06:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethnic vs. Linguistic Identity subsection

This section is dubious and unclear, the whole of it. Bisaya however is an ethnic rather than a linguistic identity. One is not a Bisaya because the language one speaks is Binisiya. It is the other way around; the language one speaks is Binisaya because one is Bisaya What does it exactly mean? (For clarity, I'll use the distinction of Bisaya the ethnicity and Binisaya the language) I'm sure it's the other way around. I know that we Bisaya acknowledge and embrace anyone who speak Binisaya natively anywhere in the country as Bisaya; so that on the contrary, one is Bisaya because he/she can speak Binisaya. The language one speaks is Binisaya no matter where you are either in the Visayas or in Mindanao. Thus Bisaya is a linguistic identity. I think all of us Filipinos go into ethnolinguistic lines so that the distinction between the speaker and the spoken language is blurred. Just like say, Tagalog, one is ethnically Tagalog because he/she speaks it natively. Visayans do not discriminate. Jordz

I reworded it. Please see if it sounds better... --Nino Gonzales 06:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Assessment Criteria for Ethnic Groups articles

Hello,

WikiProject Ethnic groups has added new assessment criteria for Ethnic Groups articles.

I rated the Bisaya article: Start-Class, with the following comments (see link to ratings summary page in the Ethnic groups template atop this talk page):

  • This article is really somewhere bewteen a "Start" class and a "B" class.
  • There are so many sections that could be added, however, that I opted for the latter. The article is 90% history.
  • Needs info on current culture, current religion, perhaps a bit of political info, etc. Basically, things about life among the Bisaya. There are a couple sentences in various sections (such as "Post-Philippine Independence"), but more info in separate sections would be helpful.
  • Needs an infobox

You can give this article (and any other article within the WikiProject) a rating, as described below.

-->How to assess articles

Revisions of assessment ratings can be made by assigning an appropriate value via the class parameter in the WikiProject Ethnic groups project banner {{Ethnic groups}} that is currently placed at the top of Ethnic groups articles' talk pages. Quality assessment guidelines are at the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's assessment system page. After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page. A link to this page can be found in the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the article's talk page.

Please see the Project's article rating and assessment scheme for more information and the details and criteria for each rating value. A brief version can be found at Template talk:Ethnic groups. You can also enquire at the Ethnic groups Project's main discussion board for assistance.

Another way to help out that could be an enjoyable pastime is to visit Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles, find an interesting-looking article to read, and carefully assess it following those guidelines.

Thanks!
--Ling.Nut 14:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Bisaya

I'm confused. Did the Bisaya arrive in the Philippines as one people who eventually fractured into the different linguistic groups that they are today, or are they really separate ethnic groups who came to form their Bisaya identity based on geography (that is, they became the Bisaya because they lived in the Visayas)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.171.104 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I haven't encountered an answer to that question. And I don't know if that could be answered. What people agree on is that the Visayans are linguistically related. --Nino Gonzales 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some Visayan legends speak of migrations, particularly one from Borneo.--23prootie 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a Visayan language family, the languages that the Bisaya now speak must have once been just one single language, hence, my belief that the Bisaya were and are one people who, because of the geographic nature of the places they settled in, ended up not understanding each other, i.e., speaking different languages. I guess sort of the same could be said about the Bicolanos, except that they have now developed a standard Bikol language so they could communicate with each other like in the olden days.
Well linguist David Zorc presented a research on how all present-day Visayan languages originated from one mother identity (proto-Visayan). He mentioned here how these languages are more like a dialect continuum. He also reconstructed the consonant and vowel inventory of the said proto-Visayan. Pansitkanton (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "standard Bikol language" was not intentionally created. There was no newly-developed language that consolidates all Bikol dialects and Central Bikol was simply chosen as the language to conveniently represent all Bikol speakers. --Pansitkanton (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 20:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: There is to many related ethnic groups in the information box section. I removed all the nonsense on this article and added more clarifications. Visayans are related to the Filipino people and Austronesian race, o.k. Have some common sense for goodness sakes. And also this article talks about Visayans citizens living in the Philippines! Why does people have to add Visayan populations in other countries??? such as Malaysia or the United States. What's that got to do with the Visayans. Visayans are from the Philippines, not Malaysia. Used some common knowledge it's very simple, why doesn't people ever used it. It's very simple.
I don't think the issue of "common sense" is contestable here as what you are accusing. Look at other ethnic groups such as Circassians, Kurds and Quechua. Like the Visayans, they are ethnic components of a country. They do not strictly fall under any existing state or exclusively control one. The issue of plurality in Philippine society might take me an article to explain, but the concept of "Filipino" is nothing but citizenship based upon definitions of a constitution, not a concrete ethnic identity. You can see the same construction in articles for ethnic groups that practically fall under the same situation as Filipino groups like the Javanese. I don't get how it's acceptable for you to present data on population of overseas people based on nationality or citizenship, but not on ethnicity which can be statistically possible as the former. It's just pure double standard. You are not promoting common knowledge as what you see about yourself, but rather destroying what Wikipedia is actually trying to let us do. I'm retaining a single data on Visayan population because there are no credible unified sources for overseas Visayan expatriates but NOT for other poorly-thought reasons such as "lack of common sense". Pansitkanton (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pedrocalungsod.jpg

Image:Pedrocalungsod.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Visayans. 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 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Visayans. 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 19:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Visayans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Utcursch (talk · contribs) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Infobox
    • Images in the infobox should be removed per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES: "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members"
    • The reference cited for religion stats is only for Central Visayas, and does not support the numbers presented in the infobox. Also, people belonging to other ethnic groups probably live in this region.
  • Terminology
    • First paragraph ("Kabisay-an refers both") is unsourced.
  • History
    • The relationship between modern Visayans and others (Austronesians / Hindus / Buddhist / Arabs) is not clear. Did these people contribute to the Visayan ethnic gene pool? Or was their role limited to cultural influence?
    • No page number for David Paul Zorc reference.
    • This source does not support the content it is cited for. It calls the Sulundon the only indigenous group of Western Visayas. It does not state that they are the only ones who maintain pre-Hispanic Visayan culture and beliefs among all the Visayans.
    • This is a self-published source – not acceptable in a good article.
    • This source is almost like a press-release for an event, and does not directly support the statement it is cited for.
    • This is a blog post – again not acceptable per WP:SPS.
    • This source does not support the entire paragraph it is cited for.
    • The source The War against the Americans does not have any page number.
    • This is a dead link. The archived page does not have any author – again, not an optimal source by WP:RS standards.
    • This is a dead link.
    • This is a dead link.
    • No page number mentioned for F. V. Aguilar (1998).
    • This is a dead link.
    • No page number mentioned for B. McAllister Linn (2000).
    • No page number mentioned for K. T. Chee (2010).
    • Last two paragraphs in the Modern age section are unsourced.
  • Language
    • The table appears to be unsourced.
  • Culture
    • No page number for Abueg, E. R.; Bisa, S. P; Cruz, E. G. (1981).
    • No page number for A. R. Guillermo (2012).
    • No page number for Aguilar, F. V. (1998).
    • No page number for Tarling, N. (1992).
    • Festivals: Much of the first paragraph is unsourced.
    • [1] and [2] are archived dead links, and I wouldn't consider these as reliable sources. These are tourism advertisements.
    • [3] is a dead link.
    • "It was found by Filipino polymath..." paragraph is unsourced.
    • This is a blog post, not a reliable source
    • [4] – dead link, and not a reliable source
    • Much of the Cinema, television and theatre section is unsourced.
    • These seem to be self-published sources: [5][ http://people.bethel.edu/~shenkel/PhysicalActivities/Rhythms/Tinikling/TinikleIdeas.html]
    • Much of the Visual arts section is unsourced.
  • General comments:
    • References are a major problem in this article. Many of the sources are dead links, accessible only through archived URLs. Also, most of the sources are offline, so I'm unable to verify them. It'd be nice to have Google Books / other online links. At least some of these sources are available online. E.g. Antique revives Binirayan festival
    • It is not clear from the article if the Visayans are the only ethnic group inhabiting these islands (I believe this is not the case, considering that the article says "not all speakers identify themselves as ethnically Visayan"). If not, the relevance of some of the content to the Visayans as an ethnic group needs to be highlighted. This content includes the text contained in the sections Federal State of the Visayas, American colonization, Modern age, Present-day (population) etc. This information does not seem to be specific to Visayans as an ethnic group – it is about the Visayas, the geographic entity.

utcursch | talk 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 28, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:  Yes
2. Verifiable?:  No
3. Broad in coverage?:  Yes
4. Neutral point of view?:  Yes
5. Stable?:  Yes
6. Images?:  Yes

The main problem with this article is sourcing. As noted above, some of the references do not support the assertions made in the article (e.g. the ref about religion only talks about Central Visayas, not Visayans in general). A lot of the content in the article is unsourced or improperly sourced (e.g. dead links and missing page numbers). Also, the article needs to make a clear distinction between Visayans as an ethnic group or as a geographical identity -- some of the content seems to be about Visayas, the geographical division, and not necessarily related only to the Visayans, the ethnic group.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. — utcursch | talk 00:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Visayans. 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) 02:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sri Vijayan nonsense

Ok I'll discuss it. The main problem here is the reliance on sources that are not WP:RS. Blogs, mystery books, and elementary/high school textbooks are not academic literature. Papers from the early to mid-20th century that have never gained widespread acceptance but are being treated as if they have is not WP:DUE either. That's not even mentioning the sources that do not verify any of the things written, and just seem to be attached randomly to the sentences, something also mentioned by the GA reviewer in 2016.

Visayan languages like all Philippine languages, are completely different from the Sunda-Sulawesi languages.
  • "Filipino author and artist John Kingsley Pangan categorized the Visayans into two ethnolinguistic subgroupings called the Madja-as Visayans and the Sugbu Visayans."
  • Um... who again? Sourced to "Church of the Far East", which as far as I know does not exist. Neither is there any indication that J.K. Pangan is notable or reliable since "artist and author" does not mean historian or academic. There is no indication of a body of published work.
  • The alleged origin of the name "Bisaya" from "Sri Vijaya" is for one, nonsensical since the name "Bisaya" originally only applied to the people of Panay, it was the Spanish who extended the term to the entire Visayas islands. And two, are long outdated, most of those theories are from the 50s to 60s, enthusiastically repeated in school textbooks, by people who still believe that all Southeast Asians are "Malays". They've long been debunked multiple times. Verstraelen, a linguist specializing in Philippine languages has noted that "Vijaya" would become "Bidaya" or "Biraya" in Philippine languages, not "Bisaya". See:
  • Baumgartner, Joseph (1974). "The Bisaya of Borneo and the Philippines: A New Look at Maragtas". Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society. 2 (3): 167–170.
  • Verstraelen, Eugene; Trosdal, Mimi (1974). "Lexical Studies on the Cebuano Language". Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society. 2 (4): 231–237.
  • Verstraelen, Eugene (1973). "Linguistics and Philippine Prehistory". Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society. 1 (3): 167–174.
  • Rausa-Gomez, Lourdes (1967). "Sri Yijava and Madjapahit" (PDF). Philippine Studies. 15 (1): 63–107.
Maximum extent of Sri Vijaya, excluding trading or diplomatic relations with independent polities
  • There is no indication by Sri Vijayan histories that they ever conquered the Philippines, even in their greatest extent. We likely had trade relations with them. But not as vassals. There are no great monuments or inscriptions or any other archeological indication that they ever reached the Philippines, aside from incidental trade goods. This is in stark contrast to true Sri Vijayan territories where there is a profusion of Buddhist artifacts and buildings, not to mention their settlement by actual Ethnic Malays. Furthermore, there seems to be a crazy misconception that Sri Vijayans (or even Majapahit) were in some way responsible for the spread of Islam, hence why they are associated with the Sulu cultures. Sri Vijaya is Buddhist, Majapahit is Hindu. One existed centuries before the other. Majapahit only converted to Islam more or less around the same time Europeans started to arrive, around the 15th to 16th centuries. Islam arrived in the Philippines through trade relations, not through hegemonic influence. See:
  • Speaking of religions. First-hand accounts by the Spanish all clearly indicate that Visayans were animists worshiping diwata, not Buddhists or Hindus. Muslims as well were readily identified by the Spanish who already know Muslims from the Reconquista. They were the ones who gave the name "Moros" in the first place.
  • The Visayan languages are in a completely separate branch from the Sunda-Sulawesi languages. If we were Sri Vijayans, you'd expect us to speak their languages. We don't. We speak a more ancient branch of the Austronesian languages with a more complex grammar that are all related to each other. Even the Tausug language is closely related to the Visayan languages, particularly Surigaonon (even the names "Tausug and "Surigaonon" mean the same thing: "people of the waves"; via Old Visayan sulug, "sea currents", cf. Cebuano "Sinulog"), not to Bornean or Sunda-Sulawesi languages, despite religious differences. Of all the Philippine languages, only Sama-Bajau languages (which include the Yakan of Basilan, the Jama Mapun of Cagayan de Sulu, and the Balangingi of Sulu and mainland Mindanao) are possibly Bornean (specifically Sabahan) in origin.
  • Hinilawod and Maragtas are oral epics. They should not be treated as if they are historical accounts. None of them mention Sri Vijaya. Instead they mention Borneo, which gives credence that the Bisaya of Borneo and the Bisaya of Panay may be related (although linguistic evidence for that is unlikely). But that's it. Any other interpretation is claiming something that isn't there.

They all need to be rewritten from WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The Sri Vijayan accounts can be mentioned, but it should NOT be presented as if it's the mainstream accepted hypothesis because it's not. It's authenticity rests on very very shaky ground. As a Visayan, it's a bit insulting (not to mention a bit pathetic) how some people want us to be something other than we are. As if to be "noble" we have to be Malays or Javanese, both alien cultures, while disregarding our own cultural uniqueness.

Now until those can be addressed, I will remove all text claiming we are Sri Vijayans. I may expand this myself later on. But I'm too busy rewriting the Austronesian peoples article at the moment. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally concur. I did not have the time rectify (or challenge) this while I was more active polishing other parts of the article. Only reworded some statements to make it sound as mere folk speculation, and the origins remain empirically inconclusive up to this day. I believe that claim was put on here back in the mid or late 2000's. And yes, Baumgartner's (1975) paper alone in fact provides enough compelling arguments that the word Bisaya has not yet been reconstructed, and that the ethnogenesis of Filipino Visayans is still largely just wild theories. Thanks a lot for this comprehensive discussion. Hope people would bother reading the talk page and this does deter anyone else trying to bring in fresh quack history onto the article. Pansitkanton (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the origin of the word “Bisaya” is a murky one in scholarship. Perhaps we should refrain posting about it until the academic circle makes a decision on it, as proposed by Obsidian. Also, I managed to download Pangan’s preview pdf (Church of the Far-East) a while back (I forgot it was stored in my hard disk) that was linked and referenced here from archives.org before it got taken down. See a screenshot here (I’m not planning on uploading or disseminating it lest I get sued, probably going to delete it afterwards as it has no use for me). Seems like he indeed made the categorization and terminology [Sugbu Visyans, Madja-as Visayans] drawing from the cultures, languages and recorded history, which is appreciated. It annoys me to no end that even some reputable works describe the Visayans as a single ethnolinguistic group, despite the obvious differences. While he seemed to err in the Sri-Vijayan connection (I don’t blame him, really), I think it’s better retain the categorizations part, as others seem to perpetuate another error. TigSulath (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TigSulath, Didn't realize the link of Church of FarEast was taken down, 'til you mentioned it. Anyway, I can verify the work, 'cause I was the one who added the link a while back. As per, Obsidian Soul, the srivijayan parts shall be exclude. Also as per TigSulath, J.K. Pangan's categorization should be retain, I guess. Thanks to @Obsidian Soul for bringing the srivijayan issue to Talk Page. Damonenjager (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TigSulath:, @Damonenjager:, I'm sorry but per WP:DUE and WP:SOAPBOX, I believe Pangan is not WP:Notable, nor his hypothesis. Mention of his name is irrelevant here. He does not show up in searches except in relation to this article. He is not an academic nor qualifies for WP:RS (correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I can not find any mention of him elsewhere). He is not neutral as well, given the article is part of a religious publication and his main hypothesis seems to be on the existence of a pre-colonial Christian population in the Philippines. I do not agree with his oversimplified categorization, given that there are several Visayan ethnic groups, not two. I am removing mention of him again. The article needs to be rewritten with regards for the "categorizations". More accurate subdivisions should be based on actual ethnic groups. Sugbuanons, Hiligaynon, Karay-a, Waray, Bol-anon, Surigaonon, Butuanon, etc. are all different independent polities, with different rulers, languages/dialects, and cultures. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 09:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsidian Soul. You brought some good points. I wont dispute them. Though I'm a bit disturbed by your implication that a work (scholarly or not) being published in a religious publication is considered not neutral. Also, if by your standards the categorization is an oversimplification, why not delete the entire Sugbu/Madja-as Visayan category? Damonenjager (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Damonenjager: Nah, it's not that. It's in light of his other hypothesis which claims a pre-colonial Christian population in the Philippines. So his views on pre-colonial history would therefore be colored by that bias. As for the categorization. I don't have the time to create a replacement for it at the moment. Madja-as and the Rajahnate of Cebu both existed, so they're a good start. Although once again, the same problem manifests in the article on Madja-as. If you think it's best we delete that section for now, I have no objections. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Note that I do not feel as strongly about Pangan, as I do about the Sri Vijayan pseudohistories. If you guys think he's acceptable as a source, I also wouldn't object further. Although my opinions are as above, in that the two categories is a gross oversimplification.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsidian Soul, you should put paste what you've posted here about the sri-vijayans to the Madja-as talk page there, though I suggest the wordings be done with more tact than being a bit forthcoming. We don't want to start a flame war with some users who are sensitive on those topics. Damonenjager (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Damonenjager: Excising the Sri Vijayan stuff from the Madja-as article is more complicated though. I despair just looking at it and knowing all our articles on pre-colonial Philippines are probably in a similar state. So much WP:OR nonsense confusing epics with history, calling Panay "Pannai", plus nebulous claims about the Sumatran origin because we supposedly have similar clothing, and how Sumatran origin is supposedly "confirmed" by Ashoka because of the similarities of the abugidas which is just... insane. Ashoka reigned more or less a thousand years before Sri Vijaya. It's as if the writer just somehow can't accept the concept that we have our own indigenous cultures. I just can't spare the time to sift through all the sources and decide which parts can be salvaged and which needs to be deleted. And it has spread to other articles. The article on Pannai itself repeats the claims.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the categorization seems justifiable for me. For example, Pangan draws his categorization of Sugbu Visayans[1] from the fact that the island of Cebu, Bohol, eastern part of Negros, Samar and Leyte belonged to an ethnic group called by the Spaniards as Pintados.[2] He coined the term Sugbu Visayans since the Cebuano language spread from Cebu to the mentioned islands thereby establishing the Cebuano dialects and Pangan cites John U. Wolf, a linguistics scholar for that.[3]

The cultural affinities of these people are mentioned by Pedro Chirino[4], a crew of Legazpi named Rodriguez, and Pigafetta described the people of parts of Leyte, Samar and Cebu as tattooed.[5] Pigafetta also recorded their language which is basically the Cebuano language.[6]

Chirino also notices the distinction of the people from Western Negros and Panay—that they spoke a different language and did not practice tattooing like the Pintados.[7] Some Spaniards called those from Panay and Western Negros as Bisaya, obviously distinct from the Pintados. From this, Pangan (I assume) draws the distinction with the shared culture of Panay and Western Negros with that of Cebu, Bohol, Leyte and parts of Samar (hence, his categorization). A distinction that was lost or overlapped the following centuries during colonization, and still persists today. Some describes the entire Visayas as Islas de Bisaya, others like Aguado calls them Islas de Pintados.[8] Until the confusion turned people of all the Visayas into one ethnolinguistic group. That is why (as I mentioned before) I appreciate the categorization.

With all those being said, if we decide that Pangan or his work is unreliable, it would be fair to just delete the categorizations entirely as Damonenjager suggests or work another categorization as proposed by Obsidian Soul. If we decide for it stay then credit the author. As far as I can read from scholarly works, I have not come across those who made such distinction. That's all I can say here. TigSulath (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing here @TigSulath. I think it's better to make another category if we decide to revamp the categorizations. I mean for me, I'm okay either way. Though I find no problem with the present categorization or deleting it. Since @Obsidian Soul, @TigSulath and myself doesn't seem to mind to delete the section, then, for the meantime, we will exclude Pangan's categorizations part, unless you guys change your minds or find new perspective/arguments/sources. Damonenjager (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TigSulath: IMO, the differences are superficial and based solely on early Spanish observations of the natives, not on actual differentiation between natives. Chirino was one of the earliest missionaries to the Visayas, back when the Spanish still knew very little of the islands and the natives. The Sugbuanon/Madja-as categorization probably only works for Panay and Negros, the coasts of both islands are settled largely by two groups: the Cebuano-speakers and the Aklanon/Hiligaynon-speakers, whom the Spanish would, of course, have greatest contact with. But not everywhere else in Visayan regions. Remember that later on, as the Spanish actually started sending missionaries to different parts of the Visayas and Mindanao, they recorded other ethnic groups clearly different from those two, which resulted in them producing the different Vocabularios in various languages.
Tattooing or lack of it isn't an indication that the groups are the same or different either. For all we know, Visayans had different tattoo patterns indicating ethnic affiliations that the Spanish didn't record. Plus it was a caste thing, only nobility and warriors had tattoos, commoners didn't.
Lastly, despite Chirino's observations, the languages of the "Madja-as" (presumably Hiligaynon, Capiznon, Karay-a, Aklanon, etc.) aren't really that much different from the languages of the "Pintados" (presumably Cebuano, Boholano, eastern Negros, Siquijor, etc.). They are all mutually intelligible, hence the Visayan categorization in the first place. Hiligaynon and Capiznon themselves are Central Visayan languages, more closely related to Waray and Romblomanon (who may or may not be among the "Pintados") than they are to Aklanon or Karay-a, which are Western Visayan languages. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the difference isn’t superficial as both the language and practices are the same. Even the datus and rajahs like that of Mactan are related to Rajah Humabon, the king of Cebu. You say it’s not an actual differentiation and that’s true, but a differentiation was indeed observed. And of course, there are sub-cultures and dialects that differ in some regions (Sugbuanons has a different sub-culture like the Leyteños, Boholanos, and Negrenes), but they grew from the same tree, so to speak. I concede that there are obviously small tribes that may or may not be related with the major ethnic groups.
You mentioned that Hiligaynon, et al. aren’t much different from the languages of the Pintados. Well, let me tell you as a Cebuanophone for my entire life, I would have an unintelligible discussion with a Hiligaynon-speaker, if not for my later studies made. Are there similarities? Sure. The same can be said with Tagalog compared to Cebuano, but the non-Cebuano speaker will have little to no success understanding a Cebuano in a conversation. The same can be said with Hiligaynon.
Thank you for this conversation.TigSulath (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TigSulath: Native Cebuano speaker as well. And I have zero problems talking with Hiligaynon, or even Waray, aside from a few differences in vocabulary. They are still closely related to Cebuano. The same can't be said for languages like Karay-a or Aklanon, which presumably are also included with the "Madja-as" category since they are native Panay languages. Both are very different from Cebuano or Hiligaynon.
The point being that the Spaniards first settled primarily in these areas and thus were exposed to what seemed to be two major groups. But again, that isn't exactly a good basis for then saying that all Visayans are therefore composed of two major groups. Leyteño, Bol-anon, Surigaonon, Kagay-anon, Butuanon, Romblombanon, Cuyonon, Masbateño, etc. are not "small tribes". Nor were they under the hegemony of Sugbu. The most obvious examples of this are Surigaonon and Tausug which emphatically are not "sub-cultures" of Cebuano. Tausug alone were a major power. They can not be classified as "Madja-as" or "Sugbu Visayan".
Think of it like an explorer landing in the Belgium, discovering the differences between the Dutch and French-speaking populations. And then concluding that all Europeans must be either of the Dutch-type or the French-type. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. This nonsense has been oft-repeated in other related pages and being passed on as facts. I will remove and edit them systemically when I have more time but I will link to this particular section of your talk page to the respective talk pages of the articles as you conveniently listed all the reasons why these statements should not belong on those pages. Much appreciated. Chicbicyclist (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Church of the Far East, pp. 17-18
  2. ^ G. Nye Steiger, H. Otley Beyer, Conrado Benitez, A History of the Orient, Oxford: 1929, Ginn and Company, pp. 122-123.
  3. ^ Pangan, 22
  4. ^ The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, vol. 12, eds. Emma Helen Blair and James Alexander Robertson (Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company), pp. 72.
  5. ^ Antonio Pigafetta, “First Voyage Around the World,” in The Philippine Islands 1493-1803, vol. 33, eds. Emma Helen Blair and James A. Robertson (Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1906), pp. 18, 194-195.
  6. ^ The Philippine Islands 1493-1803, vol. 33, pp. 188
  7. ^ The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, vol. 12, eds. Emma Helen Blair and James Alexander Robertson (Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company)
  8. ^ M. Diez-Aguado, “El verdadero pilar de Filipinas,” in Archivo Historico Hispano-Agustiniano, vol. XVI (El Escorial, 1921), 5-6. Cf. Isacio R. Rodriguez, “Bibliography on Legazpi and Urdaneta,” Philippine Studies 13, n. 2 (1965), pp. 302). Also cited in Pangan's work.

Requested move 27 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Visayans → Bisaya – Original name. Name used in the CIA Factbook. How the group self-identifies should be considered. Neutrality: Some of its members are from Mindanao so the geographic demonym "Visayan" isn't that appropriate. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 09:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant ethnic groups by province.
  • Mild oppose + Comment Per WP:ENGLISH. We need better sources that would support this move. I would prefer "Bisaya people" as target then. The CIA factbook is of limited value as it lists "Bisaya" as coordinate to "Cebuano"/"Waray" etc., which is of course not fully correct, since Bisaya is the cover term which includes "Cebuano"/"Waray" etc.
The question is admittedly not as simple as in the case of "Bisayan" (which is a scholarly coinage). Yes, "Visayan" can be used as a geographic demonym, while it is often also used to refer to all people who consider themselves "Bisayà", which would also include many people of northern Mindanao. So there is a potential ambiguity between "Visayans" = 1) inhabitants from the "Visayas" and 2) collective ethnic group that includes people who refer to themselves as "Visayan/Bisaya". So I am basically sympathetic to the proposed move, since it could actually resolve the ambiguity. The major obstacle is WP:ENGLISH.
@Shhhhwwww!!: "How the group self-identifies should be considered". Agree, but this refers to how a group self-identifies in English, which is not necessarily the same as the self-designation in the native language. Can you find more sources in English which use "Bisaya" or "Bisaya people" to support this move? –Austronesier (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: the English language source I found is the Census of the Philippines, 1948: Summary and general report: pt.1. Population. pt.2. Agriculture, which mentions Cebuano, Hiligaynon, and Waray (listed as Samar-Leyte) as subgroups of the Bisaya ethnicity. "Bisaya people" as thr title would not work because of WP:Concise and WP:Primarytopic. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term "Bisaya" is an English word since it is already used as the title for another article Bisaya (Borneo). This article is still the primary topic because more than 80% of views go to this article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to comment I'd prefer to keep the Bornean Bisaya out of the discussion as a "proof" for English usage, as they have nothing to do with the Philippine Visayans/Bisaya except for the accidentally (?) shared designation. But yes, in case you can back up your claim that "Bisaya" is the better common English name for the Visayans (and only in that case), the Philippine Bisaya would be the primary topic. But good you point it out now, I'll add a hatnote anyway. And the paper by Colla in Cao (2009) is the best source you have provided so far. In the coming days, I will do a listing of sources for the benefit of other editors not entirely familiar with the topic. –Austronesier (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources (JSTOR 2014 - present) I have entered the search terms "Bisaya" and "Visayans" in JSTOR, sorted by "newest", and opened every citation to verify whether it is relevant for WP:ENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. I have left out all citations which only had a quote from older sources, all non-English language sources, and all instances where the search term did not refer to the ethnic group (e.g. "Bisaya" for the languages). Being lazy, I have only gone back to 2014, so the count still might be within the range of variance, and not yet representative.

Visayans (5 counts)

  • BULLOCH, H. (2016). Fetal Personhood in the Christian Philippines The View from a Visayan Island. Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints, 64(2), 195-222. JSTOR 26621958 Quote: " Ethnically Siquijodnon are Bisaya (Visayan in English)".
  • Newson, L. (2015). The Longue Durée in Filipino Demographic History: The Role of Fertility Prior to 1800. In Henley D. & Nordholt H. (Eds.), Environment, Trade and Society in Southeast Asia: ALongue DuréePerspective (pp. 78-95). LEIDEN; BOSTON: Brill. JSTOR 10.1163/j.ctt1w76vg1.9.
  • Letaba, L. (2014). An Aesthetics Survey of Contemporary Musical Theater in Cebu and Bohol (1980-2009): A Report. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 42(3/4), 221-247. JSTOR 44512021.
  • Ouano-Savellon, R. (2014). "Aginid Bayok Sa Atong Tawarik": Archaic Cebuano and Historicity in a Folk Narrative. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 42(3/4), 189-220. JSTOR 44512020
  • HAWKLEY, E. (2014). Reviving the Reconquista in Southeast Asia: Moros and the Making of the Philippines, 1565-1662. Journal of World History, 25(2/3), 285-310. JSTOR 43818483

Bisaya (3 counts)

  • Bersales, J. (2016). Persistence and Change in Boljoon: Archaeology of an Early Christian Cemetery. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 44(1/2), 1-91. doi:10.2307/26788408
  • Kintanar-Alburo, E. (2014). Introducing Two Cebuano Texts in Translation: "Aginid" and "Sugilakbit". Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 42(3/4), 179-188. JSTOR 44512019
  • RUSSO, A. (2014). An artistic humanity: New positions on art and freedom in the context of Iberian expansion, 1500–1600. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, (65/66), 352-363. JSTOR 24871262

Bisayans (1 counts)

  • Borrinaga, G. (2015). Seven Churches: The Pulahan Movement in Leyte, 1902-1907. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, 43(1/2), 1-139. JSTOR 26476471

Note that Bulloch (2016) uses both, but explicitly labels "Visayan" as the English them. Based on this initial count, I stick to my "Mild oppose"-votum. –Austronesier (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I suggest you need a upgrade for your website 🙂 You need to add a voice clip with the words you are typing in. 136.158.3.32 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visayans → Bisaya – To be consistent with Bisayan languages The term is also used in English. Showiecz (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. No need for consistence with Bisayan languages, since they refer to different things. Visayans is a collective term for the ethnolinguistic groups in the Visayas. Bisayan languages is a linguistic subgroup, thus a scholarly concept. Although there is a significant overlap between the two, several ethnolinguistic groups speaking a language of the Bisayan subgroup do not reside in the Visayas and don't identify as Visayans (or Bisaya).
    So the only rationale can be WP:COMMONNAME. It is not sufficient to show that "Bisaya" is used in English texts (it undoubtedly is), but its usage should dominate over "Visayans". The onus to show this lies with the OP of this move request. –Austronesier (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in my experience Visayan is much more common, and when I search "Bisayan" the first page of results is all pages with "Visayan". CMD (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in terms of colloquial usage within the Philippines, the term "Visayan" is far more universal when referring to both the people and the languages they speak. "Bisaya" has more limited usage to Cebuano-speaking populations and mutually intelligible languages (hence why ALL of the links you provided refer exclusively to Cebuano-speakers, and do not include groups like the Hiligaynon, Cuyonon, Tausug, etc.). "Bisayan" is never used. That's just the technical name of the linguistic subgrouping, similar to how no one in the Philippines ever says "Cebuan".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Monday - Spring 2024 HIST 401

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 13 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alvin Engo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by TheWatTyler (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Visayans"