Jump to content

Talk:Philippines/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Lupang Hinirang lyrics using the former english version as translation in the audio for the anthem, when the former english version doesnt reflect the current filipino lyrics at all?

so basically, i was on the page, and i clicked on the anthem. now, by default, it has cc on, but when i read the english cc, it was the Former English version, which isnt really a translation of the current version. not sure what the english cc should be, because there isnt an official english translation of the anthem, but the current one isnt really that good. i cant really think of a way to resolve this, but google translate is fairly accurate with a few touches. my suggestion would be to use something like this:


"Welcoming land,

Pearl of the East,

Flame of the heart

In your chest is alive.


Chosen land,

You are the cradle of the brave,

By the conqueror

You will not be oppressed.


In sea and mountain,

In the breeze and in your blue sky,

The poem has beauty

And song of freedom beloved.


The sparkle of your flag

Is victory shining;

It's star and sun,

never will darken


Land of the sun,

of glory and passion,

Life is heaven in your arms;

It is our pleasure when there is an oppressor,

To die because of you."


now, this isnt an edit request, because i want other people to maybe discuss and better polish these lyrics. theres a reason that its in talk. anyways, hope this is considered. 136.158.28.84 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the English timed text lyrics of the anthem sourced from a reliable source published by ABC-CLIO. The lyrics are as follows:

Beloved land,
Pearl of the Orient,

The heart's fervor
In your bosom is ever alive.

Chosen land,
You are the cradle of the brave,

To the conquerors
You shall never surrender.

Through the seas and mountains,
Through the air and your blue sky,

There is splendor in the poem
and song of beloved freedom.

The sparkle of your flag
Is shining victor,

Its stars and sun
will never dim.

Land of glory, the sun of our affections,
Life is heaven in your arms;

When someone oppresses you, it is our pleasure
To die for you.

— Source: Minahan, James B. (23 December 2009). The Complete Guide to National Symbols and Emblems [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 151. ISBN 978-0-313-34497-8. Retrieved 24 February 2023.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanglahi86 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm especially dense today but, as I understand the above, you clicked on Lupang Hinirang in the infobox of this article, looked at that article, and are suggesting changes which you think might improve that article on the talk page of this article. If I've got that right, this discussion probably ought to be on the talk page of that article.
Re the English lyrics in that article, they are in a table column headed Former English version, and they are not meant to be a translation of the current lyrics (there s some info about those lyrics in the History section of that article).
Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood the thrust of your comment above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I do not intend to remove the former English version of the anthem in the Lupang Hinirang page; I was commenting on this specific section which was started by an IP editor in 6 November 2022. This article (Philippines) uses File:Lupang Hinirang instrumental.ogg () in the infobox; playing the file shows the subtitles/lyrics; the old English subtitles priviously used the lyrics of the anthem used during the American period. The IP editor was proposing a more accurate translation of the current official Filipino version of the anthem, and proposed an arbitrary translation above. I have searched for a reliable source and found a similar English translation of the Filipino version in a book published by ABC-CLIO; I have updated the lyrics for the OGG file (and similar audio files of the anthem) in Commons using the said lyrics. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarificatioon. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So big its timing out

Article is so big its timing out for me on 1 of 3 devices WP:TOOBIG. Need a Wikipedia:Summary style massive trim.Have tagged with Category:Articles with accessibility problems

Philippines ‎[444,882 bytes]

Moxy- 09:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe removing the Further Reading section can help reduce the page size. I agree some content needs summarizing. The Special:Long pages page includes references in page size calculation, and the current readable prose size of this broad article is 65 kB (10082 words); perhaps the Very long tag should be removed? Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Simply times out ...prose is not the only thing readers have to download to read.
  • HTML document size: 1726 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 178 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 1131 kB
  • Wiki text: 433 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 65 kB (10082 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 143 kB
Moxy- 15:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
My understanding from reading the template documentation was that the Very long template pertains to prose size and not to HTML code size. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The main link to Wikipedia:Article size covers Browser page size. WP:CANYOUREADTHIS talks more about prose. As of now article is a 40-45 min read. Moxy- 16:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Can you give any insight into what's causing the timing out? I can't replicate. There aren't too many photos or large templates. We could probably just scrap Further reading and External links if that helps, but I'm not sure it would make too much of a difference. CMD (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why. Canada article is the same prose size but at ‎‎[265,220 bytes]. Let me run a few more tests. Odd USA article ‎at ‎[335,937 bytes]

Canada stats

  • HTML document size: 1130 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 163 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 651 kB
  • Wiki text: 259 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 70 kB (10798 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 77 kB

USA stats

  • HTML document size: 1421 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 211 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 711 kB
  • Wiki text: 328 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 83 kB (13113 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 88 kB
Moxy- 19:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the main/natural cause of the larger size of this article compared to US is the large number of citations at 740+, and that most references have archive-urls. I had added such archive-urls previously to prevent future link rots and also based it on most featured articles, which had archive-urls in both their live and dead references. Most book sources in this article also have links to the book pages separate from the book link. Removing both archive-urls and separate page links though I believe will not be an improvement. Sanglahi86 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Our total prose length is actually shorter than other country articles but the density of references and citations is causing our article to take up more space than usual.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I have started removing some extra citations that do not add any additional value to the cited content. My suggestion is to remove Further reading section since it is not used directly as citations. Also, we could remove quotes from citations that are openly/readily accessible. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I would agree removing the Further reading, perhaps we can draft a bibliography article for such content. External links could be heavily pruned too. CMD (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree on your proposals. Perhaps you can initiate them, especially about the drafting of a bibliography article, which I am not familiar of? Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
It might look something like Bibliography of Canada, and allow for a single see also link here to an article divided by topic rather than an extended Further reading section here with no sorting. CMD (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
It's a great suggestion. I support its creation. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I moved most works from Further reading to Bibliography of the Philippines. Will expand it later to include some of the references used as inline citations in this article. Please refine the bibliography sorting if needed. Sanglahi86 (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Philippines land area as 343,448 sqkm?

Adhesivecobra17 revised the Philippines' total land area from the commonly known 300,000 sqkm to 343,448 sqkm. He cited Inquirer.net as a source; I checked and found the source to be an opinion piece. However, I have found seemingly more reliable/credible sources citing the figure 343,448 sqkm:

Should the land area be changed or should the 300,000 sqkm be retained? The 300,000 sqkm currently has a citation from a 1991 NAMRIA journal:

Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The cite specifies page 10. The 300,000 figure there comes from a table headed, "Land Clasification Status as of December 31, 1990 (in hectares)". Table 2.1 on page 37 of the 2010 National Statistics Office Yearbook ([1]) says that the total land area of the nine principal islands only is 288,316.0 sq km. Other good sources exist which are less closely tied to land classification are available. Two official sources (I would call them secondary sources, and good ones, though they are undated) are [2] (English) and [3] (Filipino) The English language one says, "The Republic of the Philippines is a sovereign state in archipelagic Southeast Asia, with 7,107 islands spanning more than 300,000 square kilometers of territory." and "Land Area 343,448 square kilometers (132,606 square miles)", the Filipino language one says roughly the same thing re the 300,000 figure (calling it an estimate) and says, "Lawak ng Lupain: 343,448 kilometrong kuwadrado (sq. km) o 132,606 milyang kuwadrado (sq. mi)" (English: "Land Area: 343,448 square kilometers (sq. km) or 132,606 square miles (sq. mi)". Neither of those sources are dated, but they are probably more recent than 1990 and they are both clearly some years old since the 7,107 figure as the number of islands has increased to 7,647 according to a statement by the then DOT secretary in 1990 (cite:[4], Aril 15, 2009). That source reports what is thinks is a better answer to the "How many islands?" question from another source as "During high or low tide?". The Philippines Disaster Management Reference Handbook dated November 2021 says, ""note 1: for decades, the Philippine archipelago was reported as having 7,107 islands; in 2016, the national mapping authority reported that hundreds of new islands had been discovered and increased the number of islands to 7,641 - though not all of the new islands have been verified;" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The JICA source cites the National Statistics Office, but was published after the National Statistics Office was abolished? Presumably it was the latest info they could find. PSA appears to still use 300,000. CMD (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
There, the PSA says, "approximately 300,000 square kilometers". "approximately". I have no problem with that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. JICA? Sorry, I'm lost in a sea of acronyms; this is all I could quickly find for that. if you are referring to page 10 of this, I take that as a NAMRIA publication in 1991 reporting what the NSO said in 1990. My understanding from this, this and Philippine Statistics Authority § National Statistics Office is that the PSA was formed in 2013 by merging BAS, BLES, NSCB and NSO. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I was referring to the third bullet point provided by Sanglahi above, it cites the NSO for its land area table on page 2-13. CMD (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. It would have been better if the source cite info there had included dates, but WP generally doesn't nitpick secondary citations in sources it cites as RSs. I see that the Official Gazette of the Pilippines online article on The Philippines presently says "7,107 islands spanning more than 300,000 square kilometers of territory" and "Land Area 343,448 square kilometers (132,606 square miles)".. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I restored the 300,000 sqkm land area and added as a footnote the 343,448 sqkm claim with some references. Please revise if needed. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

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) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Section image changes to improve page layout

As part of a thorough copyedit for this article requested at WP:GOCE, a maintenance tag {{Too many photos}} has been added. I opted to continue using Vector Legacy theme so I have not noticed the bad layout of the article especially for Etymology, History, and Economy sections having multiple images. After reviewing the article layout, image relevance, and a few Featured articles, I propose that the following image changes in the following sections be made to create a better page layout:

  • Etymology: remove Philip II of Spain (might place undue weight to Philip II of Spain; some FAs don't have images in their Etymology section)
  • Spanish and American colonial rule (1565–1946): remove Manila in 1847 (seems like a generic image)
  • Independence (1946–present):
  1. add Martial Law proclamation (a significant historical event)
  2. replace The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991 (a natural disaster) with either an image of People Power Revolution or better since it is higher resolution: Cory Aquino oath-taking (Fifth Republic/return of democracy)
  • Geography: remove Mayon Volcano image (Topography image seems enough)
  • Ethnic groups: might remove A map showing all ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines (two very closely related images in a single section)
  • Economy: remove either A proportional representation of Philippines exports, 2019 (has accessibility issues; some boxes/divisions in the chart have no text) or Filipinos planting rice (Philippines currently relies heavily on services than on agriculture)

Your insights please? Sanglahi86 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Agree with removing Philip II, purely decorative image that tells readers nothing more than the text does.
  • Manila in 1847 should go (shouldn't have been edit warred in in the first place but I digress).
  • No opinion on adding an image, although there is space given the current text length. However, I don't think there should be a Martial law proclamation and a People Power/Cory Aquino image, those are overlapping subjects.
  • Geography I agree, this is likely an inherent issue in vertical images.
  • Ethnic groups I agree they are related, although there would be space for one replacement image at current text size.
  • For economy, remove the skyscrapers, purely decorative.
In addition, the Austronesian expansion map should be removed, says very little about the Philippines. Furthermore, the Supreme Court building image should be removed, another purely decorative one in a section which already has a decorative image. CMD (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with your proposals. If there are no objections to your proposed changes, I will do them later to avoid an edit conflict during the copyedit. Regards. Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I did the changes you proposed. I left the A map showing all ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines since a good replacement is yet to be found. I also left the Pinatubo eruption image since it is unclear which images of Martial Law declaration or Cory oath-taking is better to use. For Economy section, there is a commented-out chart of Philippine GDP per capita development but only shows data up to 2018, so I am not sure if it is better to use it than the exports chart and planting rice image. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

"Legazpi Boulevard" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Legazpi Boulevard has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 11 § Legazpi Boulevard until a consensus is reached. Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

sanglahi86 edits

@Sanglahi86 Why do you insist on removing few important image such as the picture of Philip II of Spain for better context on the etymology section and view of Manila 1847? A view of Manila in colonial period gives more details about history than Laguna copperplate which again, no common people can read. Please avoid initiating edit wars. Keroscene777 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those images were particularly important. As you may recall the colonial painting was even added via edit warring. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I have no intention of initiating edit wars; my main concern is text sandwiching due to Vector 2022 bad layout. While the painting might show Manila as one of the finest harbors in the Pacific, especially during Spanish colonial rule, the section "Spanish and American colonial rule (1565–1946)" has already three images (if the painting is included). The section "Early states (900–1565)" had the copperplate inscription as its section image. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Citation format consistency

As part of this article's recent peer review, citation format consistency was emphasized. What would be the best course of action? Should we use {{sfn}} like what Vietnam does, or should we revert to using {{rp}} (for citations using different page numbers of the same source)? Sanglahi86 (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In my view sources should be where they appear for easy updating for editors and access for readers so you don't have to click three or four times to get to the source lIke FA articles Canada and Japan...... this style results in a lot less data/coding/ article size to load for readers. That said {{ sfn}} is no longer supported for VE. Moxy- 04:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your insights. I agree with the numerous clicks involved in sfn. I also noticed {{sfn}} has poor accessibility in mobile view, clicking the sfn citation will scroll to the source in the Bibliography section unlike clicking a direct <ref> citation (which simply opens a popup/dialog of the source). Will revert to using {{rp}} shortly if there are no objections. Sanglahi86 (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

administrative regions table

Can someone put the tables of all regions of the Philippines, please? RFG101 (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a table at the dedicated article, Regions of the Philippines. CMD (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I mean a complete table of all regions in this article, Philippines. RFG101 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
As it takes up over 4 pages on that article, it would be undue here. At any rate, they are not the most important administrative division. CMD (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Script errors

@Nikkimaria: The article is in the hidden Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded and is broken as can be seen at the bottom of the page where many templates are shown as links rather than being expanded (for example, "Template:Cite web" is visible). That is due to the recent edits which directly call reference templates rather than using #invoke. Calling the template means the reference (each of which has a lot of wikitext) is expanded twice (by the module and by the template). I thought it best to record the issue because this article is too large and problems will probably arise again. Please revert. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This has been fixed. The best solution for future-proofing would be further streamlining, both of the content and the referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Articles like this are a big problem. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

Please revert contributions of the user GloverG as pictures uploaded violate copyright. Thank you. 143.44.165.170 (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

They appear to have been reverted a couple of days ago, is there something in particular you are pointing out? CMD (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
File:Paso+Doble.jpg and File:Arnis-sea-games-2019.jpg have been tagged for deletion since June 26, 2023.
File:SINULOG FESTIVAL CONTINGENTS IN STREET DANCE 08.jpg replaced the previous Ati-atihan image under Holidays and festivals section. Sinulog is already represented in a related photo under Religion section, so I am unsure if the Ati-Atihan image is preferred. If we choose to retain the Sinulog street dance image, it might be better to replace the Religion section's Sinulog image with a pie chart of the top religious denominations. Sanglahi86 (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to change the part where it says "Spain ceded the Philippine territory to the United States"

I want to change the sentence " Spain ceded the Philippine Territory to the United States becaise according to some filipinos and historian the Philippines is bought for 20M Dollars and not ceded by Spain. IanPatricC (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AnnaMankad (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I see no WP:DUE problem in including a short phrase "on a payment of $20,000,000" or "for $20,000,000" in the sentence "In December 1898, the islands were ceded by Spain to the United States with Puerto Rico and Guam after the Spanish–American War." Besides, one of the cited sources mentions this important fact. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, for background, see Treaty of Paris (1898) § Negotiations and the treaty text itself]. Per WP:DUE, reliable sources with differing viewpoints should be accommodated, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
added: My comment above was made before I saw the indented comment above it. I have no problem with adding the info except (1) it is too fine a detail for the article lead and, perhaps, for this article and (2) it begs further clarification. If the info is added, I suggest adding it as a footnote in the Notes section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I have added the detail as a footnote. Feel free to expand/revise or clarify as needed. Regards. Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I have reverted the footnote, that is entirely unnecessary detail for the lead. It's not even in the article body. The negotiations following the Spanish-American war were not a simple question, and the payment by the United States was a result of trying to balance competing demands. Presenting it as a payment is a misleading oversimplification. CMD (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah. Spain didn't ask for $20M from the USA. Sheanobeano (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, though I suggested the footnote above, above I do agree with CMD's reversion here. More detail on this is available at Treaty of Paris (1898) § Negotiations, in sources cited there, and in other easily discovered relevant sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Waves of migration

The migrations mentioned in the lead refer specifically to the Models of migration to the Philippines, which cover the early peopling of the area. It does not refer to all immigration later times, which at any rate is wider than simply later Chinese and Spanish arrivals. CMD (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

When talking about "migration waves" since Beyer, scholars mostly have focussed on the formative pre-colonial migrations that shaped the population of the entire archipelago. It is simply wrong chronology to mention later migrations of Chinese and people from the Spanish Empire (both Europeans and Mestizos) in the pre-colonial timeline.[5] Also, these people did not arrive as "Sangleys" and "Filipino Mestizos" (except for New World mestizos), these term refers to groups that emerged locally as a result of intermarriage and cultural convergence. But still, while their "physical" impact is largely restricted to urban centers, their cultural influence has been crucial in the formation of Filipino society (and also the formation of political and economical elites), so a one-sentence mention (obviously placed somewhere after Magellan in the text) in the timeline of the second paragraph is fine IMHO. –Austronesier (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
If the aim is to provide demographic and cultural indicators, it would be preferable to create writing obviously within the context of demographics and culture (which the current lead is entirely lacking). CMD (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis 112.210.227.80 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

North Bormeo

The map of the Philippines should include North Bormeo as they claims to be part of it (see North Borneo dispute) - Jjpachano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my understanding of the they and it above, I think it means that the Philippine government claims that a part of North Bprneo is Philippine territory. I haven't gone much beyond reading the lead section of the North Borneo dispute article in attempting to understand this, but that is how I read it. IMO, if this is to become a point of contention in the article, it needs expansion beyond the lead section and supporting sources IAW WP:DUE.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
It simply isn't due. CMD (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Put Sabah aka North Borneo as light green like South Korea article showing North Korea in light green claiming it and vice versa. Sheanobeano (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Good point, and how Mainland China is shown in light green in the Taiwan article. Ztimes3 (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Philippines was south of Japan, how did it move to south of Taiwan?

During World war II, the Imperial Japanese Navy sailed south from Japan to invade Philippines, which was under American occupation. The Japanese Imperial Navy did not sail to Taiwan first before heading towards Philippines. Now, the northernmost Philippine island is almost as close to Taiwan as Taiwan is to China mainland, so how did Philippines move from South of Japan, to South of Taiwan? Thank you for your interest. 2601:647:6881:2060:494:92D8:7A2A:C526 (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The answer is: plate tectonics. Since the Pleistocene (at least), the island of Taiwan is to the immediate north of the Philippine Archipelago. You might have been misled by a look at a pseudocylindrical Europe-centered map. In such projections, the Philippines might appear straight below Japan. But a look at longitudinal lines will tell you that the route from Japan to the Philippines goes south-southwest. –Austronesier (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The Japanese Imperial Navy did not invade the Philippines by way of Taiwan, and the United States navy did not fire bomb Japan from the Philippines, south of Taiwan. During World War II, the United States island hopped to Japan, and the Philippines was one of those island groups, which was located south of Japan, not south of Taiwan. Also, the Qing Dynasty did not conquer Taiwan and drive away the Ming Dynasty royal court to the Philippines, as it's possible to do so given how close the islands now are. Additionally, the Spanish did not colonize the Philippines for more than three hundred years, south of Taiwan, as the Philippines were located rather farther away from Taiwan. Given how close the Philippines and Taiwan are now, you would expect there would be more cultural and historic exchanges between China and Philippines, but there were not, because Taiwan is scarcely mentioned in Philippine history, just as Philippines are scarcely mentioned in the history of Taiwan. 2601:647:6881:2060:505E:609D:F2A8:43A8 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Philippines area

When did the extra 43,000 sq km area be added to Philippines or annexed from where? 197.250.102.95 (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines/Archive_20&oldid=1245382949"