Talk:Filipino Mestizos

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I know that the only reason one Pinoy keeps changing Malay to Austronesian is because they want to feel closer to Polynesians, which is just sick. Malay is a subset of Austronesian, so it's more accurate since Austronesian is not a widely used term, and it will help educate people about the Philippines better. Also Malay is from the word MELAYU, and Austronesian is a broader term that would include Polynesians, so if you write Austronesian it could lead people to believe that Filipinos are Polynesians, which is okay for the wannabes who have no pride in their Filipino culture, but NOT FOR MOST OF US, regardless of which term you use, the educated thing to do would be to use the more specific well known term, which is Malay which is a subset of the Austronesian term.

ALSO, do some studying on Malay languages and you'll see that the abundance of Malay words in the indigenous languages of the Philippines (because Tagalog and Cebuano and the other languages EVOLVED from MALAY), so MALAY is a correct term to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.147.245 (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know most (if not all) of the participants in this discussion have been banned a long time ago. But it's actually funny saying that using "Austronesian" is a result of "colonial mentality".

Because it was actually Europeans who started calling us "Malay". And it was the Americans who taught us in schools that Filipinos were of the Malay race (using the five-race system that also led to Aryanism in Nazi Germany). And yes, they also included Polynesians as part of the "Malay race". The problem with that is that Malay refers explictly to the Malay people (the proper Melayu) who are natives of peninsular Malaysia. Calling us Malays is like calling all Latin Americans "Mexicans".

The term "Austronesian" has nothing to do with Polynesians. It's simply a more general and more unambiguous term to encompass ALL the ethnicities derived from the original Austronesian inhabitants of Taiwan (prior to Chinese colonization after the Chinese communist revolution). It includes Malays as well as Filipinos. And no, Filipino languages did not evolve from Malay. If anything, Malay probably evolved from Filipino languages. The Philippines was the first stop-over for the original Austronesian migrants from Taiwan on their way to the rest of Southeast Asia, Madagascar, Micronesia, Polynesia, and Oceania. Have you also examined the languages of all those places? They are also very similar to Filipino. In fact, some are even more similar to Filipino than Filipino is to Malay (particularly aboriginal Taiwanese).

Compare the following:

a, dosa, tolo, soat, lima, eneme, ito, valo, bangat, poloko - Rukai (Taiwan)

esa, disa, telu, sepat, lima, enem, pitu, walu, siwa, sa-puluq - Atayal (Taiwan)

asa, doa (raroa), tilo, apat, lima, anem, pito, wao, siam, poo - Yami (Taiwan)

a'sa, daduha, atlu, a'pat, lalima, a'nem, pito, waxo, sasyam, sapuxu - Ivatan (Batanes)

itte, duwa, tallu, appaq, lima, annam, pitu, walu, siyam, mafulu - Ibanag

oha, duwa, tulu, apat, lema, onom, pitu, walu, hiyam, himpulu - Ifugao

isa, dua, talo, apati, lima, anem, pito, walo, siam, samplo - Pangasinense

maysa, dua, tallo, uppat, lima, innem, pito, walo, siam, sangapulo - Ilocano

isa, dalawa, tatlo, apat, lima, anim, pito, walo, siam, sampo - Tagalog

saro, duwa, tulo, apat, lima, anum, pito, walo, siyam, sampulo - Bicolano

usa, duha, tulo, upat, lima, unom, pito, walo, siyam, pulo - Cebuano

sabeka, daruwa, tatelu, hep-at, lalimma, hen-em, pitu, walu, siyew, sapulu - Matigsalug (Manobo, Mindanao)

isa, duwa, tu, upat, lima, unum, pitu, walu, siyam, hangpu - Tausug

saunsa, rarua, tulu, pa, lima, num, pitu, walu, siaw, mapulo - Sangir (Sarangani)

iso, duo, tolu, apat, limo, onom, turu, walu, siam, hopod - Kadazan-Dusun

seua, dua, tello, eppa, lima, enneng, pitu, arua, asera, pulo - Buginese (Sulawesi)

isa, roa, telo, efatra, dimy, fito, valo, sivy, folo - Malagasy (Madagascar)

hacha, hugua, tulu, fatfat, lima, gunum, fiti, gualu, sigua, manot - Chamorro (Guam/Marianas)

tasi, lua, tolu, fa, lima, onu, fitu, valu, iva, sefulu - Samoan

tahi, rua, toru, wha, rima, ono, white, waru, iwa, tekau - Maori (New Zealand)

ekahi, elua, ekolu, eha, elima, eono, ehiku, ewalu, eiwa - Hawaiian

siji, loro, telu, papat, lima, enem, pitu, wolu, sanga, sepuluh - Javanese

satu, dua, tiga, empat, lima, enam, tuju, lapan, sembilan, sepuluh - Malay

Notice anything? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and also Filipinos want to distance themselves from other non-Filipino East Asian group majorities. It's kind of an issue of prejudice and stereotype which most Filipinos are feeling today especially in America. Most Filipino people overseas feel as if they are being singled out with Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thais and etc. This results on Filipinos also being stereotyped for being like those mentioned and so they too become victims of those types of prejudicy that the East Asian non-Filo ethnicities face. Blueknightex (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Do me a little favour and "read a book" and you will be surprised that what you said are false. Always use a book to find information and not your mouth. Fact: Filipinos are an Asian ethnic group related to the Malayo-Polynesian, a group of primitive Austronesian speaking people found in Southeast Asia, Madagascar and Oceania. -- Jdcjds 03:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what confuses non-Filipinos into believing that Filipino is a separate race from Spanish or Chinese, when Filipino is just a nationality term, Malay or Austronesian, Spanish, and Chinese make up the ancestry of the Filipino PEOPLE. You're just confusing people even more by not using the term Malay, which by the way, is what Jose Rizal used. He never said "My Filipino people", he said "My Malay people" so why is it so wrong to use the word Malay? The purpose of this article would be to especially educate non-Filipinos, and whoever decided to change Malay to Indigenous Filipino, you're just adding to the confusion instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.110.66 (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC) you're right Filipino is just a nationality term because it is a multiethnic country you know. Besides Mexican is a just nationality term too both sterotypes about these two go about because the US CENUS denies the history of the people, culture and everything you seem to critizing them too like i am for these reasons tell the truth about all this to the US cenus and educate them well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.92.71 (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

I've returned them now don't worry ;) but make sure that if you plan to put other names of mestizos make sure that there is proof. Otherwise if that particular person just "claimed" themselves to be mestizo then I must remove it. Blueknightex (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

No I think we should talk about that. Other articles in Wikipedia talk about racial discrimination, prejudicy and singularity.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Please do not delete this article! This is indeed a true fact, issue and a section about the Philippine colonial mentality that DOES exist on Wikipedia. It is on the Colonial mentality article if you want proof. The section that I have created on this article is not a NPOV or some made up perspective from myself (which some users thought such as Jdcjds ! ). All I'm trying to do is link that section on the Colonial mentality with this article. Thank You Blueknightex (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Use a "book" to find information and not your mouth or your personal point of view or other problematic issues. You will be surprised what you said are false. It seems you have not conducted a research study based on this issue. You have not provided any scientific or professional study. Your information is a philosphy are based on foreign issues and your Personal point of view. -- Jdcjds 3:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not. Use your eyes and read the Colonial mentality article, look up Philippines, Pedigree and forgery. Now does it still look like Philosophy to you? Personal point of view? Yeah right. If you have problems then question the Colonial mentality article about the Pedigree and forgery section not me. If you wish to delete my section try deleting the other one first. Like what I've said before I'm linking that article to this one. Look if what I wrote on that section sounded as if it came out of my mouth then tell me what I can do to improve that section of the article instead of just deleting sections that you think is wrong. Blueknightex (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am not talking about Colonial mentality. I am talking about the "Favouritism issue", an information you have discussed in your subject of Colonial mentality. This is a controversial and vague information. There is no such thing as a "Favouritism towards mestizo"? Were did you get that information from?. Who conducted these research? Can you provide scientific and professional information conducted by scholars in regards to the word "Favouritism" on Filipino mestizo? It is a Personal Point Of View. Provide facts and not Nuetral Point of View. --Jdcjds 14:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well good you FINALLY read the article! I just want to make one point clear. I did not write that "Favouritism" thing on that article.In fact, I wasn't even the one who wrote about the "favouritism" thing on the Colonial mentality - The Philippines section in the very first place!. I just came across it and decided to link it with Filipino mestizo. No offence but your being a little too prejudice. I was just talking about "linking" Colonial mentality - Pedigree and forgery with Filipino mestizo. I had nothing to do with anything that was written on that article if that's what you were on about which is why you deleted my section!. Now here you are giving direct accusations about everything I wrote on this article like Vandalism when all I did was "link" some parts of Colonial mentality to this article. If you have a problem with that "Favouritism" thing that you were accusing me of don't continue pointing the blame on me and deleting it . Please do question the people who created that on the Colonial mentality Disscussion page. Not me. I had nothing to do with what was written there. Blueknightex (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no reliable information has been conducted by scholars in regards to the information you have provided. Why are you linking Colonial mentality and Filipino mestizo, together. This article is not about politics. This is about an ethnic group. Your information is an issue from your point of view. Do not bring problematic issues or politics or other non-sense information in this article. Colonial mentality does not belong in this article. Once again, this article is about an ethnic group and "not" politics. Jdcjds 08:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you made a big mistake and finally you "understood" that what I put in wasn't a "Negative Point of View" or "Philosophy" shame on you!. You should have told me that earlier instead of insulting me with accusations. Blueknightex (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:I am sorry. We are all here to provide correct information about an ethnic group. Thank you.-- Jdcjds 09:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then =( Blueknightex (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ever link this to the Malay ethnic group article, this is not a Malaysia-related article, thank you. Zollerriia63 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a mestizo as someone of "mixed filipino and any foreign origin" is incomplete. It implies 'filipino' is one race (presumably just the Malay/Austronesian one?). Filpinos of different racial origins can create mestizos. The Spanish, Chinese and whatever else I think have the right to be regarded as filipinos by this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.148.154 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding pictures or text about them in this article. While interesting, it is highly irrelevant to the rest of the content. Wikipedia is not a list of trivia.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filipino mestizo. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131018051535/http://www.ocac.gov.tw/download.asp?tag=P&file=DownFile/File_17979.pdf&no=17979 to http://www.ocac.gov.tw/download.asp?tag=P&file=DownFile/File_17979.pdf&no=17979
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090715083913/http://www.analitica.com:80/Bitblio/emily_monroy/race_mixing.asp to http://www.analitica.com/Bitblio/emily_monroy/race_mixing.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070209232520/http://xeniaeditrice.it:80/lens.pdf to http://www.xeniaeditrice.it/lens.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to ask who made the colonial caste system? I seriously think this to be false. You may want to check out the Filipinian section and many of the Filipino historians to check how the Spanish colonial caste system was in the Philippines because it is not the same as in the latin american countries. From what I read the colonial system in the Philippines goes like this:

I. Top: Pure Spaniards\European with

*1. Peninsulares (Spaniards born outside the Philippines) being on top
*2. Insulares (Criollos or Pure Spaniards born and raised in the Philippines - the first term for "Filipinos")

Note: Both resent each other. Peninsulares think they are superior than these "provincial" Spaniards and the Insulares hate the Peninsulares "worldly" arrogance. One of the priest in Gomburza was an Insulares, not mestizo.

II. Spanish Mestizos A. - many of the spanish mestizos who can pass for white may be mistaken or treated as insulares. hence, they have experienced certain privileges afforded only to Pure Spaniards

III. Mestizos

• 1. Spanish Mestizos B. - half spanish-native mestizos who passed for mixed, or native. children of spanish mestizo and native.
• 2. Chinese mestizos - usually children of bussiness-savvy chinese and natives, chinese and mestizo, or a mixed of the 3.

IV. Urbane population

• 1. Indio A - (Urbane Indio) who lives near the city and usually interacts with Spaniards from time to time, comprises of the general colonized population at that time.
• 2. Chinos A - pure chinese people/immigrants who changed their names and converted to catholicism, adopted the mainstream native culture and married a native

V. The "uncivilized"

• 1. Indio natural - unconverted indios (and therefore not civilized to the spanish ways, usually live outside the spanish dominated areas like in the cordilleras)
• 2. Indio Chino - Pure chinese or japanese immigrants that were not converted to hispanic mainstream ways (usually lives in the parian)

Not everything is black and white during that time. The ones being shown in the wiki seems like an oversimplification and seems highly imaginative than factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.48.151 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filipino mestizo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003035607/http://www.public-conversations.org.za/_pdfs/anderson_12.pdf to http://www.public-conversations.org.za/_pdfs/anderson_12.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filipino mestizo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009181632/http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-5.html to http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009181632/http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-5.html to http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-5.html/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ocac.gov.tw/download.asp?tag%3DP%26file%3DDownFile%2FFile_17979.pdf%26no%3D17979

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 17:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Filipino mestizo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009181632/http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-5.html to http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-5.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017130623/http://filipino-chinese.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=1 to http://filipino-chinese.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927092857/http://www.seacex.es/documentos/imag_colonial_13_identidad.pdf to http://www.seacex.es/documentos/imag_colonial_13_identidad.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.popline.org/docs/0010/016619.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all! I'm working on developing the multiracialism article here on Wikipedia, and I aim to broaden the scope of the article to make it less Euro/American-centric. Because of the article's current focus, the experiences of multiracial individuals of Asian and Pacific Island heritage have been overlooked.

In light of this, I plan on including a section about mixed-race experiences in the Philippines and what it might mean to be multiracial in the PH. I was wondering if anyone on this page had suggestions or would be willing to provide direction for how this article might be structured. I have outlined my revisions and plans for more country-specific contributions (ex: what it might mean to be multiracial in Brazil) briefly in my sandbox if you're interested in the work I have planned. Please let me know if you would like to help me best represent our people. --Tmsloan (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bro trying to figure their race out is kind of silly. Personally I believe they were originally a mix of their native island genetics (Polynesian?) and Portuguese, then perhaps later on some African slaves got thrown in there. Definitely some kind of mestizo. 172.115.25.5 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]