Talk:Filipino mestizo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Article Clean-up 2 Spanish mestizos belonging to upper and middle class and rarely intermingle with the indigenous? 3 What happened to Junior Morales? 4 Overrepresentation 5 Overblown 6 Reversion of infobox population figure change 7 Flag?

[edit] Article Clean-up

Edited the entire page, removed and replaced all unverifiable and biased content with entries that are neutral and verifiable. Everyone is encouraged to contribute more verifiable and unbiased information relating to the article. -- Heroditoes

Changed "native" to "indigenous". "Native" as a noun can mean someone born in a place as in "Native of Boston"; as an adjective can mean belonging to or originating in a place as in "Native American". Native-born but pure-blooded Spaniards were called "criollos" in Spanish-ruled Americas and "insulares" or "Filipinos" in Spanish-ruled Philippines. To avoid possible confusion with being native-born, the word "indigenous" is used instead of "native". Anti beast (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish mestizos belonging to upper and middle class and rarely intermingle with the indigenous?

Is there a factual basis that Spanish mestizos rarely intermingle/intermarry with the indigenous natives because of a negative social consequence? For Chinese mestizos maybe yes but Spanish mestizo? No. Spanish mestizos are scattered in the archipelago and do not have any concentration in any areas in the Philippines (unlike Chinese mestizos). If the case stated in the article is true, then they are probably the most alienated amd loneliest mestizos in the world. It is totally impossible that this minority will not or RARELY intermingle with the indigenous since they do no see themselves different from them (aside from their ancestry). I know in Philippine's census, they never asked you of your ethnic background unless if you have recent non-Philippine ancestry. So how about Filipinos whose ancestors (during the Spanish era) are mestizos? clearly they do not document this as the people who does the census NEVER asked these kind of questions in the Philippines. Point is, Spanish mestizos mostly belong to upper and middle class is just a stereotype/assumption and not a fact. Are there any reference to this aside from the national demographics alone? If you based it on the demographics sheet, then it is flawed. As the likes of Pilita Corrales would consider themselves Cebuano than Eurasian. What more with Filipinos with no recent or direct Spanish ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthComission (talk • contribs) 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, those are just stereotypes and assumptions based on and reinforced from the Philippine media and movies. Most mestizos belong to the lower classes, and the "mestizos" that most Filipinos refer to are not actually mestizos, but more CASTIZOS, or more than 50% European blood, the only problem is that Filipinos as a people use the word mestizo differently and it has a different meaning in the Philippines than the rest of the world. -Angel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.212.156 (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm planning a comprehensive revision on this article, so please don't redirect to Mestizo. I find nothing wrong in making an article specifically for Filipino Mestizos -- Matthewprc

Hello, I removed that statement (Spanish mestizos belonging to upper and middle class and rarely intermingle with the indigenous), from the article. I found that entry to be biased and discriminatory. OK. It was also unverifiable, as it has not been documented fact. -- Heroditoes

[edit] What happened to Junior Morales?

What happened to Junior Morales (Antonio Morales Barreto), and other people in the list of famous mestizos?

[edit] Overrepresentation

This implies that there is a sort of “unfairness” in the entertainment industry and that the government should do something about it, like set racist representation quotas for non-kayumanggi and non-pango Pinoys on TV and in the movies. That indeed may be the wish of some, both Filipinos and foreigners, but it is definitely not in the interest of Wikipedia and its readers to take sides regarding this or any issue for that matter. Thus I rephrased the sentence.

Similar views would be that of Chinese-Filipinos being overrepresented in the business sector.

if the government did that then it would be branded racist don't you think?Australian Jezza 05:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, those are definitely racist/discriminating comments and should be removed from the article completely. -- Heroditoes

[edit] Overblown

I can't believe why people would blow just one genetic study by Stanford University, out of proportion. I don't think that that is enough scientific basis for saying dubious statements such as only 3% of Filipinos have foreign genes. I think there should be more studies to prove this. For example, this one shows that almost 50% of the inhabitants of Luzon have foreign genes. One, and even twelve, are not enough!23prootie 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda leary about that 3% but it did state who their target study was, so that I can understand. It's not like they werent from the extreme south to the extreme north testing people of various tribes, ethnic groups or provinces. Mamoahina 02:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have found out that the samples they gathered are in the areas from Sulu to Mindanao only (Malay peninsula), so there is a higher probability that Filipinos with European genes are more than 3.6% —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthComission (talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the majority of Filipinos and Philippine citizens do have foreign genes, considering that prehistoric migrants from China contributed greatly to the formation of the Filipino people. As for the Stanford study, I believe it only covered European gene markers.

What do you mean by 'majority'? Are you suggesting that more than 40 million Filipinos in the Philippines alone has had foreign "ancestors"? And what do you mean by "foreign genes" really? And as for the study covering European gene, you really need to be careful when reading that. It is very complicated and not for the average Joe, that I can understand. Mamoahina 02:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's just categorically dishonest if not just plain old ridiculous. Statistically valid samples are needed not studies based insignificant samples as well as anecdotes. --Chris S. 06:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I had seen that study mentioned elsewhere but hadn't looked at it. I've now skimmed through it, but cannot claim to understand it fully. One wonders how the info on this page relates to Filipino people#Ancestry, which says (based, I presume, on that same study):

While there has not yet been a genetic study of great statistical significance about the ancestry of the various Philippine ethnic groups, there have been some studies, based upon very small samples of the population, which provide clues as to their origins.

For example, a Stanford University study conducted during 2001 revealed that haplogroup L predominates among Filipinos. This particular haplogroup is common among the southern Chinese, particularly among the Hoklo people. Another haplogroup, haplogroup H is also found among Filipinos. The rates of Haplogroup H is highest among the Taiwanese Aborigines. Overall, the genetic frequencies found among Filipinos pinpoints to the Ami tribe of Taiwan as their nearest genetic relative.

Also I'll mention these possibly related sidelight items, [1] and, perhaps, [2]. -- Boracay Bill 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of infobox population figure change

I have just reverted a recent edit of the population figure in the infobox. The reason for the reversion is that the reversion cited two separate Wikipedia pages as supporting sources.

Wikipidea Articles cannot be cited as supporting sources. This used to be clearer and more visible in the guidelines than it currently is, but it can be seen in the guidelines as they currently stand in WP:RS#Generally_unacceptable_sources — in the list of examples of unreliable sources given there, see the example which reads:

• Open wikis, including other language Wikipedias and even articles in this Wikipedia (when you find any sourced information on another wiki, you can validate and use the same source);

I will try to get this guideline made more visible.

Also, parenthetically, I'm doubtful that the change would have been meaningful even if it had relied on citeable supporting sources. It seemed to assert that since there are arguably X-many Eurasians of mixed ancestry (citing -implicitly via the wiki page cited directly- a Josua project source which does not verify this on the cited page) and Y-many Filipino Mestizos (with no cited supporting source), there are therefore somewhere between X and Y many total Filipino Mestizos. -- Boracay Bill 07:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag?

Does anyone else think that this article could use a general clean-up to address some grammar errors?

Flagged it for clean up. The article has too much unverifiable content, and too many entries that may be biased. -- Heroditoes