TruthComission

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Phroziac (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Filipinos are not descended from Malaysians, Chinese, and Melanesian

Please refer to the talk page concerning the Philippines article. --Chris 01:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Filipinos' ethnic make-up

This is addressed to User:TruthComission and his/her confusion concerning the Filipinos' ethnic make-up.

Although Filipinos are popularly called Malayans, the reality is that they are not. The reason they were called Malay(an)s was due to H. Otley Beyer's theory that Filipinos are descended from Malays who came from the Malay peninsula. Beyer took the name of an existing ethnic group and expanded it to include Filipinos. Since Beyer, there have been more conclusive studies that Filipinos came from the north rather than the south. If they didn't come from the south, then this does not them Malay. The ancestors of the Malays instead came from the Philippines (but ultimately from southern China).

As for Filipinos being Melanesians, I am not sure how where you got this information from. Would you care to share your source? I don't see any indication from the 89 year old source you quoted. The ancestors of the Melanesians also came from the same place where the ancestors of the Filipinos came from.

Chinese - yes there are many Chinese Filipinos. But to state that all Filipinos are mixed of Chinese blood is very misleading.

Here are sources that I urge you to peruse:

• Bellwood, Peter. "Taiwan and the Prehistory of the Austronesians-speaking Peoples." The Review of Archaeology. 1998
• Bellwood, Peter. "The Austronesians: Historical and comparative perspectives

." 1995

• Blundell. “The Austronesian Dispersal,” Newsletter of Chinese Ethnology.
• Blust, Robert. "The Austronesian Homeland: A Linguistic Perspective." Asian Perspectives.
• "The Austronesian Dispersal and the Origin of Languages." 1991. Scientific American. July.

And here are some websites to peruse:

• From Australian National University's site
• a map of a partial Austronesian migration
• Another map
• Another view of Austronesian migration from Berkeley
• A site about Polynesian origins from Stanford
• List of sources from University of Hawai'i that you could peruse.

Last but not least, "Asian Latinos?" Filipinos indeed have Hispanic influence. And indeed they are Asians. But they are in no way Asian Latinos. First, they do not meet the definition of Latino as you can see in that article. Second Asian Latinos refers to something totally different. Please stop redefining terminology that is not even used in academia. --Chris 09:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Filipinos are predominantly Malay

While it is true that Filipinos descended from Austronesians originating in Taiwan. Most of the Malay ancestry descended from Filipinos came directly from the Malay Peninsula. There were 3 waves of Malay migration in the Philippines. The first wave came directly from Taiwan, these are the ancestors of the T'boli, Igorots and other highlander tribes. The second wave of migration came from the ten Bornean chiefs who brought along them their subjects. These were the ancestors of the Tagalogs, Ilonngos, Bicolanos, Cebuanos and other low-land Filipinos. Majority of the Philippine population came from this wave. The third wave came just about the end of the Pre-hispanic era up to the Spanish Colonial era. These Malays are now the ancestors of the Muslims in mindanao and Sulu. Furthermore, even before the Chinese have trade and commercial relatonship with China, Malays are already imbued with Chinese, Arab, Hindu, Persian blood and all other blood of ancient civilizations they have been in contact with. Malayan/Malay and Malaysians are two different terms, please learn to differentiate them. Melanesians are what is locally known in the Philippines as the "Negritos". Thus, it is correct to say that categorically, Filipinos are descended from the Malay, Chinese and Melanesian peoples.

Also, there are small communities of Latin people that came directly from Asia and Oceania where the Spaniards and Portuguese once colonized it. Some of them are in the Philippines.

The migration wave theory is exactly what Beyer proposed. And wave theory is what is no longer true. All Filipinos came from the north, as evidenced by current research. There were people from Malaysia who came to the Philippines, but this was much later. But they did not intermingle with the Filipinos. Given linguistic research, the languages of the the northern Philippines (Ilokano, Pangasinan, Kapampangan, Ifugao, etc.), central Philippines (Tagalog, Bikol, Cebuano, Tausug, etc.), and southern (Maranao & Maguindanao) are closely related to each other. This suggests a common source. Furthermore, the Malay language is so dramatically simplified. The languages of the Philippines are conservative - they retain many of the features of the ancestral languages. --Chris 18:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Majority of Filipinos did NOT directly come from the Taiwan

The research only explains the migration of Austronesians from Taiwan to Southeast Asia to Oceania via the Philippines. This however, does not give extensive research on the history of migrations exclusively in the Philippines. That while it is true that first migration came directly from Taiwan, the descendants of most Filipinos came from the Malay Peninsula. The reason is that, when the first wave of Austronesian migration from Taiwan to the Philippines occured, these austronesians do not have the technology as advanced as those in the Indo-Chinese regions. These tribal villages only adapted the technology coming from their previous settlement. Many Austronesians however, continued to move from Philippines to Southeast Asia and then to Oceania. And after several centuries, these Austronesians who settled to the Malay peninsula, adapted the technology and culture of the advanced civilization of India and other ancient civilizations of Asia as exhibited by the Majapahit and Sri-Vijaya empires. The second wave of Malay migration occured because these austronesians or malays, trying to escape the clutch of invasion from the latter empire, went to the Philippines where they also brought the culture and technology they have adopted. Majority of Filipino's ancestry are rooted to this said wave.

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 10:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Filipino Basque

I have already been granted the permission to copy the said article as a contribution to wikipedia.org provided that the said article is not altered in any way, and that I credit the author and cite the website it was taken. You can email Jill of Center for Basque Studies at berner@unr.edu for the confirmation. Thanks!

Thanks for your note - but this causes a clash of rights. When you post text to Wikipedia, you buy into the conditions at the foot of the edit page: the GNU Free Documentation License and freedom to edit mercilessly. That's incompatible with any previous condition not to alter the text. If the Center for Basque Studies are not prepared to allow edits, then it shouldn't be posted here. Tearlach 01:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Brief modifications

Filipino won't be considered for transwiki to Wiktionary because it is a disambiguation page. Similar pages exist for Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Mexican, American, Russian, and many others. Don't worry. --Chris 02:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

But it was a candidate to wiktionary as noted by .org. I also want to disagree on Filipiuno term used on "from or related to the Philippines" since mostly "Philippine" is used (e.g. Philippine Islands, Philippine Airlines, Philippine Navy, etc. and not Filipino. I also think it would be better if we will be more informative on the origin and history of the said subject as compared to the rest. In the meantime, I look forward for a compromise. So we can at least have a final "Filipino" article that we dont have to watch too much.

I include the wiktionary tag. That is so people can look it up on Wiktionary easily. There already is a wiktionary entry. I just linked to it. So, it's not in danger of being moved. As for the "from or related to the Philippines." Filipino fits in some cases like (Filipino model, Filipino basketball player, Filipino linguist, Filipino author, etc.). Perhaps that should be made clear. What do you think? --Chris 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be made clear. And how about the origin and description of the Filipino article? I think we should not be copying the rest, for who knows, they will be more likely to modify their respective article adding on the origin and description of the subject (e.g. Spanish, Japanese, Russian)

Ok, I put something there. I realized that Filipino is also used for non-people. Like The Filipino Channel, Filipino literature, Filipino Community, etc. Anyway, I've been on Wikipedia for a while and pages like Spanish and Japanese have been that way, more or less. Any information should be put on a specific page. --Chris 05:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes but Filipino alone always refer to the people, and is also originated to refer to people. Should we not explain this? We find the information too modest and lacking. And as I said before, we should not be copying their article, it's not the given standard.

Read the guidelines on what to put and what not to put in a Disambiguation page. And who is "we?" Are you two people? --Chris 07:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

We have not read the guidelines yet, but we have browsed on the article "Filipino people" and we are okay with that. "We" are actually group of four friends, on one account. Sorry for the confusion.

On Al-Andalus

I understand that you have been in debate with Al-Andalus about Malays. In my opinion, I do believe that Austronesian is primarily Malay-Polynesian, so it is only appropriate to term Filipinos Malay. Austronesian [used as a term for language and culture), Malay-polynesian (popularly used by academic circles to refer to Austronesians). But anyway, I am not here for that debate, my intention here with you is about the guy named Al-Andalus, Please see "mestizo" particularly on "mestizo ascendancy" and also on discussion and please tell me what you think and your opinions about it, as I find the article very misleading.

I'll put Mestizo on the list of articles to check out. I've been busy with getting Kapampangan language out of stub status and plan on working other Philippine languages before my vacation ends. Anyway, I won't repeat my debate here with Malay and why it's an inappropriate term in academia, but I will refer you to the sources at the end of the Filipino people article.

And thanks for your cooperation - you all are getting a hang of this Wiki stuff. Now, I must ask.. So the four of you, are you students? If so, where? --Chris 22:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually yes, but two of us already graduated. Ateneo de Zamboanga University.

Can you please tell us when will you be starting on the mestizo article? We've already started it, we need your help on the vocabularies and hopefully some additional sources if yu have some.

I just took a look at the article and I see you engaged in a war. Unfortunately, I'm not of much help with this topic. I suggest combing through sources and see what you can find. That's what wins edit wars here. Sorry I'm not of much help. --Chris 08:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)