Talk:Filipino people

pictures

I replaced two pictures by Magsaysay and Aquino respectively. They are more significant historical figures. -- 112.205.51.84 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That make-up of pictures looks less yellow-press-like now. -- 112.205.51.84 (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Maria Venus Raj.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Maria Venus Raj.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Precious Lara Quigaman.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Precious Lara Quigaman.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead para in the Genetic studies section

The opening sentence, beginning "The Philippine Government has never conducted any recent genetic study ..." was added in this April 2010 edit, with a have->has correction having been applied in this edit in May 2010. It may be a WP:COPYPASTE from this web page (or the reverse may be true -- I don't know). At a minimum, the wording here needs to be improved. Actually, I think the article would be better if this were to be simply removed; what the RP government has or has not done in this regard is not of central significance to the article topic, and the assertion re small sample sizes in the latter parts of this run-on sentence is unsupported and looks like a POV insinuation that the mentioned studies are unreliable. The second sentence of the para was added in this June 2010 edit along with the supporting cite, which could be seen as a link promoting a product. I wouldn't call the link addition WP:LINKSPAM, but I do question how much value its presence adds to the article, and to what extent it supports the assertion to which it is attached. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Museum of Learning Website is a mirror of Wikipedia so it's not a copyvio. See disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Anyway I individually checked each assertion and their supporting references with the following evaluation:

• Ref 52 is almost certainly promotional and should be deleted.
• Ref 53 is a study on Taiwanese aborigines not Filipinos.
• Ref 54 discusses Austronesian migrations rather than Filipinos specifically.
• Ref 55 is also generalized and actually points out that Taiwanese aborigines share more genetic similarity to Filipinos and Indonesians and less with Thais and Chinese. Current wording is inaccurate. It also deals with Taiwanese aborigines rather than Filipinos.
• Ref 56 uses a sample size of only 50 individuals each for Luzon and Cebu.
• Ref 57 is a very generalized research using a sample size of 150-300 for each region. Which means the source discusses the entirety of Southeast Asia not the Philippines specifically. We do not even know if there are any Filipinos in the sample.
• Ref 58 uses a sample size of only 28 individuals.

I agree that second sentence with the link to the advertising site should be deleted, but I disagree that the first sentence in the lead is misleading and POV. It is quite true if you look at the sources. I would agree to its deletion if and only if some of the assertions in the section are also removed, namely those from Ref 56 and Ref 58 which does use a sample size that is waaay too small to be of any real significance. 100 and 28 individuals respectively can not ever give an accurate portrait of the genetic diversity of 92 million people.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a statistician, but I see that this tool says that the ideal sample size for a population of 92 million would be 385 for a 5% margin of error and 95% confidence level, that a sample size of 100 gives a 9.8% margin of error, 50 gives 13.86%, and 28 gives 18.52%. Rather than treating the studies completely accurate vs. totally useless, perhaps it would be a good idea to add info re sample sizes and margins of error.

For a general survey from a homogenous population maybe. Calculating samples for genetic studies are a bit more complex than that, especially for a heterogenous archipelagic population. Samples from Luzon and Cebu alone are not widespread enough to avoid hasty generalization and sampling bias. Even the studies cited do not specifically discuss the results in such a way that it would warrant treating the studies as conclusive for the rest of the Filipino population.

And all of those studies except for one are of Southeast Asian peoples in general, not specifically Filipinos. Unless we can find new studies that specifically aimed to study the genetic history of Filipinos, we have to provide a warning per WP:DUE that these studies are by no means representative of the entire Filipino population. Either we retain the lead paragraph for that reason or we give a more accurate discussion of each study (including providing the sample sizes for each) and remove those which are derived from more generalized studies. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at this but let's go a bit further down the road.

• Re the para supported by ref 53, if I understand what the paper says, it sufficiently supports the assertion "Genetic data found among a sampling of Filipinos may indicate some relation to the Ami tribe of Taiwan."
• Re the para supported by ref 54, the cited source (a secondary source, not the study itself -- which I have not seen) does not seem to support "from the Philippines". Without that, it seems to be not relevant to this article.
• Re the para supported by ref 55 , the cited source seems to support the assertion, "A 2002 China Medical University study indicated that some Filipinos shared genetic chromosome that is found among Asian people, such as Taiwanese aborigines, Indonesians, Thais, and Chinese."
• Re the para supported by ref 56, it has English language problems. It apparently speaks of one study, not "A variety of research study" and I'm not sure whether "genetic chromosome were found" speaks of a single chromosome or several chromosomes, but it does say, " The predominant genotype detected was SC, the Southeast Asian genotype".
• Re the para supported by cite 57 (I've fleshed out that cite), the page cited does not appear to support the assertion to which it is attached, but look at the bottom of page 274.
• Re the para supported by cite 58, the item cited is the same item cited by cite 53; the item cited supports the assertion, "it was stated that 3.6% European introgression out of 28 samples was evident in the Philippines.:

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can not access page 274. :( Nonetheless, I would support any changes that would specify the scope of the studies more accurately (and remove those which can not be verified). If we can manage that, I'd have no problems with removing the lead para. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess the point here is that while those studies can prove genetic interrelationships with other populations, they can not be treated as comprehensive treatments of the entire population. i.e. we can't use them to say that "All Filipinos are more related to this or that population" or "All Filipinos have % genetic history from this or that population". And there should be a means to put that point across.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what your access problem might be with p.275; it works for me ([1]). Re not saying that the genetic relationships described by the studies apply to (every individual in) the entire Filipino population, I don't read the section as asserting that. With the exceptions noted above I do read the section, para by para, as asserting what I have described above. WP practices (with which I personally do not agree on this particular point) currently allow excision of information and supporting citations in articles which, though it comes from sources generally considered reliable for an article topic, is determined by consensus of article editors to be untrue. Given that, I suggest, following on my analysis above, that the lead para of the section and the para supported by cite number 54 be removed and the rest of the section left as it is (as far as the impact of this discussion goes). What say you? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I can agree that much of those sources are reliable, the question here is WP:DUE. None of these studies (again with the exception of Ref 56) are about the genetic history of Filipinos. Rather they are about the genetic history of closely related Taiwanese aborigines or of Southeast Asians in general. Therefore while we can use them, they simply should not be used to assert wider conclusions on the rest of the Filipino population.

The original revision of the article actually does this. It claims that Filipinos have 3.6% European genetic ancestry. It fails to mention that this was based on a study which used a sample of 28 individuals, only 1 of whom showed the presence of European haplotypes. Obviously this is WP:SYNTHESIS. How can you assess European admixture from a sample size that small? The study itself never states that 3.6% of Filipinos show European introgression, rather it simply states that European admixture was detected without deriving any conclusions of the percentage of its occurrence (merely the % value of those found in that particular sample). It simply says "It's there".

Anyway p. 274 still shows as "This page is not part of the preview" for me, which is weird, I'll leave it to you to judge whether it can be used though and for what. I agree that the lead para can be deleted but still think the other cited paragraphs should be modified to be more accurate. Specifically the following:

• Ref 55 (which I mixed up with 53 earlier): Taiwanese aborigines are more closely related to Filipinos and Indonesians than to Thais and Chinese peoples. The abstract of the study specifically states the following which basically means Taiwanese aborigines are closer to Austronesians ("islanders", which include insular Southeast Asians, Malagasy, and Oceanic Polynesians) like Filipinos and Indonesians rather than the Indochinese Tai peoples and East Asians ("mainland" Southeast Asians). Notice the large difference in frequency of the mutation markers used between Filipinos and neighboring peoples.

The genetic frequencies of C571T were much higher in Taiwan aborigines(1.96% to 20.4%), Filipinos(13.2%), and Indonesians(3.30%) as compared with Thai(0.57%), Chinese(0.65% to 1.12%), Japanese(0%), and Caucasians(0%). The frequencies of the G849A mutation were also higher in Taiwan aborigines(0.38% to 21.57%), Filipinos(6.80%), and Indonesians(1.48%) than in Thai(0.94%), Chinese(0-0.37%), Japanese(0%), or Caucasians(0%).

• Ref 56: Current discussion is quite inaccurate. The study states no such thing. It actually says the dominant genotype of the JC virus (a human polyomavirus found in 70 to 90% of the human population, variations of which can be used as 'trackers' somewhat for human population migration) is SC, the Southeast Asian genotype. Needless to say, this is not Human DNA we're talking about here.

• Ref 58/53: While it can be used to support the statement on European admixture, the 3.6% assertion is simply a value in the study and not connected to the study's conclusions and should be removed. The study itself does not cover the Philippine population that well and says as much. However, its earlier use (in Ref 53) is good enough (the source of the study is the same paper).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I deleted the lead para of the section.

I looked more closely at ref 57 and p.177 does apply, but additional pages are needed to support the article assertion. I've added some pages to the cite. Looking further afield, I found this, which cites Turner and wherein the second para on the page seems to more directly support what the article para containing cite 57 asserts. It says pretty directly that Sindont dental patterns occur in East Asia and Sundont patterns occur in mainland and island Southeast Asia (explicitly mentioning the Philippines). I've rewritten the relevant paragraph and added a cite (I'm well outside my expertise areas here, but I think I've got it right -- improvement welcome). The items cited here don't seem to fit the heading of the section, though. I haven't changed the section heading, but Academic studies might be more appropriate than Genetic studies.

Speaking of expertise, you're clearly much more expert than I re genetic studies. I'll defer to that expertise. Please correct the paras as needed.

I think the article is improving as a result of this. WP:BRD works. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll try to improve the word flow a bit and lump together studies with similar conclusions. Maybe add some more studies if I can find them. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, really busy these past few days. Should have some time for this later tonight.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten about this. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

lead section

The Filipino People are people around the world who are mostly from the Philippines and the United States, and other regions of the world. A little bit shorter but not much lesser informations: The Filipino People are from the world. Please try a definition what Filipino people are. --Diwas (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a recent addition. Reworded.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, for good and fast work. Now it is a good lead section. --Diwas (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of reversion of edit by 58.109.34.113

I've reverted parts of this edit, which look to me to be the unsupported expression of the viewpoint of one anonymous editor.

• insertion of "In fact, most of the "Spanish" in the Philippines were from Mexico, not Spain." : This is unsupported, and may or may not be true. Without much checking, I recall that the Philippines was considered a province of Viceroyalty of New Spain and was governed from Mexico City. I don't know about the demographics of Spanish people in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. I've removed this unsupported assertion.
• "British conquest of the Spanish Philippines" -> [[British occupation of Manila|British attempted to conquer]] : As the wikilinked article says, this was "... Colonel William Draper's 'Scheme for taking Manila with some Troops, which are already in the East Indies' in the East. ... King George III signed the instructions to Draper to implement his Scheme, emphasizing that by taking advantage of the 'existing war with Spain' Britain might be able to assure her post-war mercantile expansion." It was a sideshow of the Seven Years War. I've changed this to [[British occupation of Manila|British forces occupied Manila]].

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)