Filipino nationalism was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Filipino nationalism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Filipino nationalism at the Reference desk.

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

Tambayan Philippines: History 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. This article is supported by the Philippine history task force (assessed as Top-importance). Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dudes, this article is better suited for WikiPilipinas. TheTechieGeek63 (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiPilipinas:Filipino nationalism article already exists. Both that article and this WP article started from the 11:43, September 5, 2005 version of this article, but the two articles have taken different editorial forks from there.

I've added a ((refimprove)) tag to the article. From what I've seen, sparsity of cited sources is often an indication of WP:OR, WP:POV and/or WP:Plagarism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patterned the title from the Chinese nationalism article. --Jojit fb 02:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be "Filipino nationalism" then? --Saintjust 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of and references to Brown Raise seem to have appeared recently in this and other Filipino-focused Wikipedia articles. I'm wondering whether and to what extent this is spam. It seems to me that if this organization is to be prominently mentioned, it should meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and there should be a Wikipedia article about it. If I was just seeing links to their website in External links sections, I might or might not remove them as apparent link spam (WP:ELNO #4). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section says, "Spain had already ruled the Philippines for more than three centuries before Filipino nationalism developed." It seems to me that the Philippine revolts against Spain article provides a few (perhaps not all of the 53 listed, but probably some of those) counter-examples. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The early revolts listed were neither directly nor indirectly linked to the 1896 Revolution that established the Philippines as a nation. Moreover, various history books written by Filipino historians etablish the execution of GomBurZa as the beginning of Filipino Nationalism.

Hmmm, you know, Philippine history is a delicate matter to edit on wikipedia. Even Filipino historians argue amongst themselves about the identity of Filipinos. Pre-Hispanic Philippines is just one side of the coin and Spanish Philippines another. For example, Teodoro Agoncillo seems to veer towards the pre-hispanic datus as the base of Filipino identity while Nick Joaquin and Jose Guerrero towards the Creole insurgencies. There seems to be a common denominator between the two schools of thought though and that is the Philippine nation was established in 1896 through that revolution. Agoncillo calls it the Revolt of the Masses (Indios) while Joaquin/Guerrero calls it the Revolt of the Ilustrados (Creoles). Historians from both schools of thought do not trace Filipino nationalism to the pre-hispanic civilizations.

I was apparently unclear. I take the assertion, "Filipino Nationalism is an upsurge of patriotic sentiments and nationalistic ideals in the Philippines of the 19th century that came consequently as a result of more than two centuries of Spanish rule ..." in the article's lead sentence to include the implied assertion that nationalism (from that article: "the identification of an ethnic identity with a state". "the belief that one's nation is of primary importance") did not exist in the Philippines prior to the 19th century and that movements to establish or protect a homeland did not occur in the Philippines prior to the Katipunan. In fact, such movements did occur (see the Philippine revolts against Spain article), and I'm pretty sure that participants in those movements could fairly be described as Philippine nationalists. I would describe Chief Dagami of Gabi, the primary participant in the Dagami Revolt of 1567 (which actually occurred in 1565) as having been a Philippine nationalist; the leader of the Magalat Revolt 1n 1596 is said in that WP article to have committed atrocities upon his fellow natives for refusing to rise up against the Spaniards. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:

By July 1892, an Ilustrado mass man in the name of Andrés Bonifacio established a revolutionary party based on the Filipino nationalism that started with Los Hijos del País--Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit adding material to the section headed Further progress of Filipino Nationalism (1820s-1860) out of chronological sequence in relation to material already present there. Then, looking at the section, I noticed that it contains material referring to dates outside of the period the header declares that it covers (1810-1813, 1807, 1816, 1762-1764, 1873). It looks to me as if some cleanup is needed here. This article is far enough outside my normal focus that I hesitate to jump in and fiddle with it, and I've got other things to do, so for now I'll just mention this apparent need for cleanup here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little cleanup editing on this article today. One thing I noticed was that the lead sentence had a cite reading "Nick Joaquin, History and Culture." I could not find such a book in Google Books. I did find the following, and it seems to me that one of these might be the intended source. I'm not sure which, so I've removed the questionable citation.

• Nick Joaquin (1988). Culture and history: occasional notes on the process of Philippine becoming. Solar Pub. Corp. ISBN 9789711706333. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |DUPLICATE_url= ignored (help)
• Nick Joaquin; Beaulah Pedregosa Taguiwalo (2004). Culture and history. Anvil Publishing. ISBN 9789712713002.

This article seems to cover a lot of historical material which is not directly related to its topic. It seems to me that much of the material in this article should be removed, and perhaps merged into one or another of the articles in the History of the Philippines group of articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Filipino nationalism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: What a pro. (talk · contribs) 15:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is too small for an article of this size.
• I don't see how sections 7, 8, and 11 relate to Filipino Nationalism.
• There are several citation needed tags and a clarification needed tag.
• Some sections have whole paragraphs that are uncited.
• Dashes and capitalization aren't used properly (e.g. The Start of Filipino Nationalism (1760s-1820s)).
• There is a reference an entire book (citation 1) without giving the pages.
• There are two references that are exactly the same (11 & 12).
• There are some bare URLs.
• Reference 30 leads to nowhere.
• Many references lack details like publisher, accessdate, etc.
• Some grammar errors (e.g. Ramon Magsaysay, which was then...).
• A little POV (e.g. Corazon Aquino succeeded as president of the Philippines.).
• Prose needs work (e.g. The Katipunan reached an overwhelming membership and attracted almost the lowly of the Filipino class.)

Sorry, but this article needs a lot of work before it becomes a GA. Good luck on improving the article, though. What a pro (talk, contribs) thinks that ohhhh, ohhh, woaaah-oh-oh-ohhhhh. 15:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that some of the sections in this article are written by left-leaning professors as well as those of the right and fear that the objectivity of the article might be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.233.140 (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Filipino nationalism. 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/20070818121552/http://www.history.navy.mil:80/faqs/faq71-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq71-1.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Filipino nationalism. 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/20060822045537/http://pinas.dlsu.edu.ph:80/history/history.html to http://pinas.dlsu.edu.ph/history/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512212522/http://www.bibingka.com:80/phg/documents/jun12.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/phg/documents/jun12.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]