Talk:Filipino values

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

Tambayan Philippines Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Systems This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

A fact from Filipino values appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 February 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Philippine-edition of Playboy magazine does not display frontal nudity or human genitalia in order not to go against FILIPINO VALUES ARE SUPER GOOD? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/February.

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

I'm curious - what is a disvalue? This word does not exist and if it did, then a NEGATIVE DISVALUE would imply a POSUTIVE VALUE!! Denisarona (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting approach. But if doesn't meet its chosen goal: "identifies the Filipino people from other groups of people." The values as they are described in the article apply to idealized traditional societies or subgroups the world over. Either the goal isn't chosen properly, or it should be explained what's uniquely Filipino about those values. Stupid girl (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Filipino myself, and most of this article and its references tend to go into pseudoscience by implying that all Filipinos hold the same values sacred (people of different religions hold different values sacred, for one) and that the Philippines is held together by this supposed system which is romantic nonsense at best.--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Filipino, but I agree entirely - it seems bizarre to have this article when there is no equivalent "American values" or "European values" article. The article is also confused and badly referenced. Take this section:

"As a general description, the distinct value system of Philippine people can be summarized and summed up into having dominant characteristics of moderation or having just enough or being sufficient, having the family as the center and priority in life, trust in God, nationalistic traditions of independence, cooperation and unity, charity, heroism, group participation, friendship and companionship, sense of justice and equality, concept of human dignity and human rights, non-violence, historical awakening, environmental consciousness, and the emergence of empowered people and nation (as embodied in the People Power Revolution of 1986)."

I think you could probably say the same about any nation or group of people on the planet. Someone should nominate this for deletion. 93.97.193.226 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as a Wikipedian, why not add what you think are missing to improve the article. - AnakngAraw (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that they perpetuate stereotypes, the section is referenced by an unencyclopedic source (a grade school project) and it's POV in nature, casting judgement on what should be portrayed as positive and what should be negative. POV is rampant in Philippine media and sources, let's try to keep it out of this article.--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also Filipino and I am sorry to say that I completely agree with A Second Man in Motion and Stupid girl. The article reads like propaganda. It's idealized, hopelessly unrealistic, and paints every single filipino with a broad brush. Some concepts are largely true - deference to elders (even if someone is older than you by only a year), the tradition of the mano (or as we Bisaya call it, amin), the concept of the kalooban, etc. But the rest simply do not meet Wikipedia's criteria on Neutral Points of View. While I am quite proud of my own ethnicity, I do think the degree of nationalism shown here is excessive, to put it lightly. As is the undue weight given on the importance of Christianity given how the Philippines is effectively a secular democratic state and not a theocracy (i.e. religion neutral).

The presence of the word 'God' in the preamble of the Constitution does not imply a Christian state, nor does it automatically mirror the general values of the populace. The presence of the word 'God' in the Presidential Oath of Office is also voluntary, and a non-Christian/non-religious person can freely run for president. They can choose to take an affirmation instead of an oath to become president, and thus not be required to say the words while still having the same legal effect.

I'm all for creating an article on Filipino culture... but not like this. :/ I'm bringing this to the attention of the other Filipino Wikipedians as non-Filipino editors are often hesitant to challenge sensitive articles on another nation's cultural identity. But this article represents us and it gives a very wrong impression. I mean, sure, we're generally very nice people, hehe, but we're not the islander versions of the The Stepford Wives.--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry if I come across as confrontational. I am not nominating your article for deletion. Merely asking for help from other filipino editors on improving these articles. It might mean deletion though (if not of the articles then significant parts of them), rewording, or merging.--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of my changes to the article:

1. Removed lines which are not supported by the citations they are tagged with. i.e. The subject matter/summary of the references do not match the assertions.
2. Removed lines that use dead links as references and replaced with new ones. Necessitated rewriting though.
3. Rewrote some lines to reflect the references more with a neutral point of view and without embellishment.
4. Removed values which are universal/pictures that depict generic human values that do NOT take on a Filipino context when applied to filipinos. Retained only distinctive cultural values.
5. Removed undue importance placed on the trivia that the Philippines use the words 'God' and 'love' twice in its constitution. It is largely irrelevant to this article, in my opinion (what text is placed on the constituion does not reflect the general outlook of the populace). I do think, however that the general NPOV description of it would make a nice addition to the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines article.

The subsections Elements and composition and Gender-specific values still need attention. The sources I used provide a lot of material for more content. I suggest structuring these subsections to be something of a list of the most basic and distinctive Filipino values, both positive and negative.

Hiya, Bayanihan, Pakikisama, Pakikipagkapwa, Utang na Loob, Bahala na, Dangal, Amor propio (is it actually spelled Amor propio or Amor pro Pio?), Galang, Pakitang tao, machismo, the influence of the Catholic Church/Christianity, the importance placed on the nuclear family, etc.--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Filipino values. 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/20110720015814/http://didache.nts.edu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=277&Itemid to http://didache.nts.edu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=277&Itemid
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160417164213/http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-7/chapter_xiii.htm to http://www.crvp.org/book/Series03/III-7/chapter_xiii.htm

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) 17:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mano po(bless).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in the tag, many aspects of the article are problematic. Many of the definitions are vague and overbroad and have no citations. Frameworks for organizing concepts are used without either explanation or historical explanation as to how they were developed. The text is written in a way that suggests there is consensus in the field when some of the ideas have in fact been disputed and even discredited for decades. And worst of all, there are not enough citations in the text, making it imposssible to reconstruct how the original editors came up with their assertions. I will try to improve on this, but I think the writing may come out a bit hamfisted. So I am asking for help from other editors to improve the article. - Batongmalake (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of right now, what I've done is made some changes to the lead, adding two references and providing some historical context (inserting that as a second lead paragraph). _ Batongmalake (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]