Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Philippine FOP-related deletion nominations at Commons.

Please check Commons:Category:Philippine FOP cases/pending several images are being nominated due to vague Freedom of Panorama in the Philippines. Images of the Plaques/markers may be saved sinced most of them are black signs with white text with the Philippine coat of arms in it which are non-copyrighted elements some may qualify under De minimis. This is why a freedom of panorama law should be defined in the Philippines. The Torre de Manila issue is just the tip of the iceberg. Meaning you can't upload photos of monuments due to vague freedom of panorama law or the lack of it. If the Rizal Monument is more recent then, an image of it can't be even uploaded for commons with or without the building behind it.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Philippines and the Wikimedia Foundation have talked to IPO Philippines about this and their position is that the law is silent on the matter of FoP in the Philippines. Unfortunately, Commons is taking a very conservative approach here. IPO says that the only way to resolve the issue is to have a judicial case. —seav (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I don't know if this Senate Bill No. 2595 filed by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago last 29 January 2015 could pass for a Philippine FoP law. It is still pending though in the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights.1.--RioHondo (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That bill won't cut it. It says nothing about copyright. —seav (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's nice, but still seav is right. It only regulate non-copyright-related restrictions on photographers. For example there were reports that taking photographs of the Rizal Monument needs a permit from the management even though there is no FoP problem when taking a photography of the monument since it is in the public domain already. The proposed law only prevents security guards from harassing a casual photographer with a dslr taking photo of the monument. Leniently this could be interpreted as granting freedom of panorama rights on public places but strictly it doesn't mention the copyright of relevant photos; That taking a photo of a copyrighted works such as a building or a 3D art is not copyright infringement or a work of its own.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

You could argue though that Section 3 of said bill is a FoP provision, as it clearly states that "It is contrary to public policy to prohibit or restrict photography in public spaces, whether for private, news media, or commercial use." Because photography by default involves the capturing of images, whether copyrighted or not, it can be argued that this could be interpreted as giving photographers the right to photograph what they want unless restricted beforehand, and that by virtue of that, they can release it under whatever license they want or they can do whatever they want with the image(s) in question. While this may require interpretation by the courts, it certainly is better than nothing. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just so that I am clear, photos of any building within copyright regardless of ownership is not allowed, right? Churches, schools, markets, terminals -- none of these are allowed? No statues still under copyright of Rizal, Bonifacio, etc. No stained glass or church interiors, saints statues, unless proven old enough. No cemetery tombs. Indeed, photographs of anything built out of reinforced concrete, with a few rare exceptions, is out. Which means that I should stop uploading photos of buildings in the Philippines. Did I get this right? Oh, what about jeepneys? Ships? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone keeps nominating the images I upload in local Wikipedia to Commons. I hate Commons, cos I know what they do to images there. Someone should request for a stay of massive deletions pending the passage of the above law. I agree with SkyHarbor that Section 3 is all what FOP extremists needed to hear. That's Freedom of photography anywhere in the Philippines for private, news media or commercial use in WP.--RioHondo (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Igorot people

A discussion regarding the "political incorrectness" / "offensive" use of the term Igorot people is up at Talk:Igorot people#"Igorot" is derogatory? if you are interested. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month

Hi, everyone. Next month, a bunch of Asian Wikipedia communities are organizing the Wikipedia Asian Month, an online edit-a-thon to expand Wikipedia content on Asian countries. Would this be something that you guys would like to do? The Tagalog Wikipedia is running the project and I figured I should ask here if English-writing Filipino Wikipedians would be interested in joining this project as well. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that: we now have an English-language project. Come visit Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Participation

Hi, I would like to participate to edit the page of the town of San Jose, Camarines Sur. I'm presently employed with the LGU as Web/Network Administrator and doing some historical research that I intend to publish here. Thank you. Geopoet (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you already edited the page. I hope that won't count as conflict of interest. ;-) --Jojit (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are in conflict of interest, see WP:COI. You must declare this COI on the talk page, using {{connected contributor}} template. COI editing is strongly discouraged, but you can propose changes on the article talk page by using the {{request edit}} template. If you propose edits that are factual, objective (i.e. not promotional), and properly referenced to reliable sources, they will likely be acceptable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am less worried about the conflict of interest but that would depend on the edits. Keeping information and statistics on a city's page up to date is OK. Copying-and-pasting the city's promotional tourist website is another matter. Too many Phil city articles are WP:Promotional. If one is doing historical information about one's own city and wants to share that information then that is OK. Remember an article on a city is NOT an article on the city government. A city government does not equal a city. A city is not defined by its government. A city is bigger than its government, exists independently and prior to its government. Governments like to think that they are synonymous with the city -- that they somehow "own" the city -- but they are not and do not. Just because one works for the GOVERNMENT does not mean that one has a conflict about editing the CITY's article, especially the parts unrelated to the government.

Other things to watch out for -- other things that a number of Philppine city articles suffer from -- is WP:recentism and WP:Original research Too many city Wikipedia pages read like the current mayor's homepage. WP:Wikipedia is not a place to publish one's own research. Make sure to cite WP:Third-party sources. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Good points Iloilo Wanderer. I noticed the same things. Often the promotional tone is the result of direct cut-and-paste copyvios (I have commented on this before, see Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive31#Copyright violations).

Even if Geopoet is not adding promotional content, he is still in conflict of interest. @Geopoet: WP:COI is a WP Standard, so if you want to edit San Jose, Camarines Sur, you must follow the instructions at WP:COI. See also WP:COIADVICE for a list of the non-controversial edits you can make. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those are very good observations Iloilo, and very much on point. It's true there are many city articles here that read like their mayors resumes. Promotional and full of local government hype. This copy pasting from (the mayor's) government websites is rampant, and it's not just because people love their mayors. I think it's also an indication of the level of English the people here have, that many (even apolitical ones) would resort to copying directly from the mayors write ups being unable to paraphrase or come up with their own English sentences and summaries. Anyway, that's just my take in this. :)--RioHondo (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe COI does not apply to me because of the following reasons:

I'm not a native-born resident of the town. I was born in Naga City.
I am a freelance researcher by profession and I discovered that San Jose has broken pieces of history which I could build/write through this article, of course, after conduct of research and investigation.
Editing this page will not benefit me at all but the reading public. I spent a lot of time to gather articles that were published and cite the source of the information; I even photographed them and published in Commons. I can assure you of my independence. My work with the LGU will not certainly create "bias" on my part because I do my own investigation of facts.

Now, if my edits will not be honored here. It's okay. I can publish it thru a blog. But I formally request to please reconsider it. I believe that Wikipedia remains an "open encyclopedia" so that anybody who has knowledge about the article can edit or even contest it. I believe Wikipedia is still FREE and OPEN. This is the basics that I know. Thanks. Geopoet (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geopoet, I think nobody reverted your changes. It is still there. Although, I recommend that you cite reliable sources on your recent expansion of the article. Despite that, personally, I welcome your edits. :-) --Jojit (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Geopoet: None of the reasons you mentioned above are relevant. You admitted to being a paid employee of San Jose, Camarines Sur. That is what makes it COI. But as I stated above, if you stick to non-controversial edits as per WP:COIADVICE, your edits will be honored. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jojit & P199. It's really reassuring. Yes, I will stick to the non-controversial edits as required and recommended. Geopoet (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Settlements: Article structure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

With 2 endorsements and no objections, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure is now officially part of WP:MOSPHIL. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I propose that Tambayan adopts Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure for its settlement articles (i.e. cities, municipalities, barangays, etc.). I have already been rearranging articles based on this guideline in the past, without objection it seems. Now it may be helpful to formally adopt this guideline as part of WP:MOSPHIL. I am not suggesting to do a massive retroactive restructuring of articles, just to start using it moving forward as a help in creating uniformity and settling potential disputes. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with using the article structure. It might help improve many of the articles, especially on cities. Too many of the articles on cities read as if they are copied and pasted from the city government's promotional material, either for tourism or investment. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I personally do not like that Wikipedia seems to want to put history as one of the first sections on a place article, which is unlike how Britannica and many other encyclopedias do it (usually at the end or near the end). But I think consistency is good so I have no objections to the proposal. —seav (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't like the history section first. Note that the Article structure allows the Geography section to be placed ahead of history. That's what I usually do. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It all too quick for likes of me ... it was only seven days from start to finish, and these days it gets be longer to start my writing. I have a lot to add, but on the other hand, MOS does say much anyway. I think there are only four headings – History, Geography, Economy and the fourth head which could be called Society or Community. Below History there might be Etymology. Geography can be physical geography such as Land Classification, Climate, as well as Barangays, Demographic. Economy can included Commerce, Transport. Society includes any to do with people, such as Government, Education, Health, Religion, Culture, Tourism, and Twin Cities.

Above all, remember that is to be an encyclopedia, not WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not WP:IINFO.

Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Mon 06:19, wikitime= 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Unbuttered Parsnip. (Actually from 1st proposed (Oct. 19) to closure (Nov. 9) was 19 days, and you were active on WP every day during that period.) Why reinvent the wheel? There is no benefit in your proposed structure over the existing one. The Settlements article structure serves our purpose really well, and does not in itself contribute to problems with WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

(As I said, I had a stroke which makes writing / speak difficult. Reading / hearing is OK.)
As see it, MOSPHIL actually contains not much – for instance no mention of Barangays, and like I said, Transport should be a subsection of Economy, not be a longer way from it. At the moment, the sections are not very logically. Etymology it said should be a subsection of History, but has made it an equally section, and before it.
I didn't mean that the structure is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, what I meant is that the lot of garbage that shouldn't in, for example a list of primary schools in a municipality. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 07:08, wikitime= 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Readers of WP should rightly expect to find the same info in the same place whether reading about a Philippine city or an American city, British city, etc. That is not the case yet in most instances, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure aims to create this uniformity. Creating a new article structure will not be helpful to WP readers. As for the "garbage", you can see from my edit history that I also actively remove indiscriminate info when I find it, but that is not the discussion here. Regards, -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

APEC 2015 Summit notability

Is the ongoing APEC Summit notable enough to warrant its own article? If we have articles for every UAAP season (like UAAP Season 68, with subarticles on several sports) why not for every APEC Summit? Some relevant pages for discussion: WP:EVENT and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines. —seav (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the guests of honour during the occasion, e.g. the likes of Barack Obama, dismissing it as non-notable would be short-changing it. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

We already have APEC Philippines 2015 that was created last April 2015. --Jojit (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

IMO, an article on this would be an example of WP:Recentism. That probably applies to the APEC Philippines 2015 as well. That's just me, though. 112.198.98.240 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There are already existing individual articles for the last 10 APEC Summits. See: Asia-Pacific_Economic_Cooperation#Meeting_locations. TheCoffee (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Chavacano Wikipedia closure

Someone proposed to close the the Chavacano Wikipedia. You may want to comment on the proposal page at meta. --Jojit (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see the point with closing the wiki, as the problem here is it seems to be too niche for most people (most of my maternal relatives speak the language, but they're not tech-savvy so that rules out any direct contributions from them), yet I see it as a way to promote the language as it appears to be suffering from a decline, hence why the Cavite City LGU is taking steps to encourage the use of it, e.g. bilingual signs in public places and whatnot. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

nanogrants for Wikipedia editors, esp in this Tambayan

our Demented Mother, Mila del Sol, 93, (who really does have dementia, this time) told me on Christmas Day that i was demented for not allocating funds specifically for the purpose of training “the poor” on how to improve Wikipedia.

so as to Honor Our Mother (as if we had a choice), The Mila del Sol & Eddie Romero Fund for Community Development is herewith compelled to offer unlimited nanogrants to qualifying organizations and persons (esp those in Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines), for the purpose of training “the poor” on how to improve Wikipedia. Details here: http://leoromero.org/nanogrants-for-wikipedia-editors

Thank you, and

Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 02:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Marcos family

I've been seeing a lot of traffic about that family for years, and it seems the "rehabilitation" is going fullforce, with even the talk pages in Marcos the Elder becoming forums with content no different from their various social media accounts (yeah, I'm looking at you, Get Real Philippines, Definitely Filipino, Showbiz Government, and Anti-Pinoy!). Can we lock them all down (for Notability and COI, for starters), and heavily wheelback the edits because all they want is to deodorize the family and possibly raise the chances of that fake Oxford graduate winning as Veep? Exec8 knows I raised a similar issue on this at the Wikiconference three years ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeing how persistent this is, and given them being a prime target for scorn or praise whichever faction those editors side with, would an indef semi or pending changes lock do the trick for this? Blake Gripling (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A wheelback and heavy cleanup has to happen, but I agree with you. If need be, slapping a multiple issues tag works because those loyalists do all manner of crap so all is favorable to them. NO WAY we're gonna let that happen. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So, the question would be... which sources aren't reliable enough for you. If a known Marcos loyalist who's an expert on something writes something about Marcos about his/her expertise, are we throwing that away from the window? –H T D 16:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a relatively late reply, but presumably pro-Marcos content may be included in related articles provided that they aren't given undue weight in articles (i.e. the [reliable] consensus seems to be that the Marcos period had more negative effects overall than positive, and articles should reflect that). If a pro-Marcos statement contradicts what is given on other sources, the statement could be included in articles, but with the opposing viewpoint being given as well. This particularly should be the case if loyalists add to articles that the Philippine economy was robust during the Marcos period, when in fact outside sources suggest otherwise. If the loyalists use unreliable sources such as Facebook and the like, just revert immediately. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone would cite to Facebook as a reference; you may be referring to link being passed around. If it's from a reliable source, then why not. –H T D 14:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What if that "reliable source" is actually a crock of revisionist nonsense, like Enrile's memoirs or even Gerardo Sicat's book on Cesar Virata? RE HTD's question on loyalists writing something about Makoy, their integrity is already compromised by association because you know the slant. What about talk pages? Do we purge them of stuff that really has nothing towards improving the article? I know those pages are full of them.--Eaglestorm (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hi guys. I've put up a merge proposal last month which is at Talk:Philippines_men's_national_basketball_team#Merger_proposal. Unfortunately still no participants. Maybe some of you from here could have a say. Thanks. Thepantomimehorse (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Maynila

Was the page taken over by Islamists and nobody noticed? It reads very fringe to me. What in heaven is Kota Seludong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.128.132 (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I recall, that wasn't me who did that, since I don't have the depth of familiarity with the specific source material that I usually prefer to have before such a major addition (aka the Bruneian documentation). But when that change got introduced, I didn't object, because the literature I have bears it out - these sources also indicate "Selurong" as the old name of the place (like I said, though, they don't go into any further detail like when it got that name, how the name was proclaimed, and whether the name was used by the locals or just the conquering bruneians, etc). "Seludong" is an acceptable orthographic variant. (Also, I can't put it in there because it's unsourced, but that's also basically orthogoraphically re-read as "Kuta Sa Lusong." Which pretty much closes the argument as far as I'm concerned.) - Alternativity (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe it WAS me but I don't remember the edit. Will check at a later date. hehe. - Alternativity (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I remember W. H. Scott mentioning that there was a time the Spanish thought that the ruler of Maynila was the generalissimo of the Sultan of Brunei, and I think that Brunei also thought almost about the same as well. Hence, the label for his turf as "kota," as in Cotabato down south. Then again, I am unsure about Philippine-Bruneian relations at the time. I suggest further research on the matter, but for the meantime, I think using Selurong/Seludong is not advisable (at least on my observation). Come to think of it, Ludong is more of Chinese provenance. Perhaps Brunei adopted it? (Then again, the question of why Maynila prevailed remains.) Arius1998 (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the references to Seludong were added on 11 February 2013‎ by User:Egard89, although with a note that he was restoring material already previously added to the page. So no, it wasn't me. To my knowledge, though, the Philippine-Bruneian relationship in our early historic period is rather well documented. The documentation is based on Bruneian historical records, of course, so bias isn't unlikely. But documentation exists nonetheless and has been referred to by numerous historians, including IIRC Scott and Dery. References to Selurong, I haven't actually seen any detailed sources for, but the name has turned up consistently in peripheral textual discussions in my readings. Will try to find references. Overall, I'm more concerned about recent edits to portray early historic Philippine states as "sinified kingdoms" when they really did nothing more than trade with the Song and Tang courts, and maybe offer tribute to facilitate that trade. The links to Islamic Thassalocratic Kingdoms is actually established by the documentation. (Although in adressing both claims, we have to live with the translations of the sources, unless we speak Old Kavi or whatever language was used by the Tang and Song courts.) Huh. Will try to find references for Selurong. - Alternativity (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia 15 logo, PH version

Heads up to fellow Tambays: we now have a PH version of the Wikipedia15 logo featuring the map of the Philippines. Credits for the idea goes to Sky Harbor. (My apologies if your favorite island was left out of the design, as I want to make this as minimalistic as possible in line with the recommended Wikipedia15 vector art style.) Feel free to use as you see fit ;) --- Tito Pao (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia15, PH version
Without the word marks

These are beautiful, Titopao! :) Now, for those who are planning Wikipedia 15 events, please feel free to use these logos. In addition, here in Manila we will have a celebration this Saturday at Press Café, located at Fully Booked at the Promenade in Greenhills, which will also be the launch event for the new Encyclopedia of Philippine Heritage project of Wikimedia Philippines. You're all invited to come! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sky Harbor! When is the date and time of the launch event/celebration again? Also, ditto how beautiful these are, Titopao! - Alternativity (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Alternativity: This Saturday, 1:00 pm at the venue I mentioned earlier. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Locator map on General Trias, Cavite article

Hmm, for some reason Patternpat1 kept on bringing back his rendition of the locator map for Gentri even though TheCoffee's version is better and more consistent with other places. Care if someone here can cover me with this issue? Blake Gripling (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Overseas workers

I knew about 'overseas Filipino workers', of course, but I wanted to learn about other nations' 'overseas workers'. I was surprised to see that this term is largely restricted to the Philippines; in its stead, each nation has its own terminology, and the terms are restricted to specific conditions:

overseas workers --of nation _____ (fill in the blank)
Overseas Filipino workers -- of the Philippines
Transhumance -- movement of people and their livestock between traditional pasture locations
Nomads -- term is land-based, rather than island-based movement
Migrant workers -- term has the concept of the seasonal cycle of agriculture
Bracero -- Mexican migrant workers in the US
Guest worker program -- a program for foreign workers employed in a host nation
Foreign workers -- noncitizens employed in a host nation
Expatriates -- citizens employed in a foreign country (this is a shift in perspective, to that of the worker rather than the employer. Still the same idea though.)
Immigrants -- permanent movement to a new heimat (German term for mother country)
natural-born -- permanent citizenship bestowed by virtue of a family's heimat
Anabaptists -- a whole series of communities like the Pennsylvania Dutch, Swabians (and other German-speakers who dwell in their own self-isolated cultures), the Mennonites in Mexico and US, Amish in Mexico and US. Like Mormons in Mexico and US, I see many resemblances to the Filipinos living overseas, each with a distinct self-identity.

It looks like this could be a new article for the encyclopedia? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We already have economic migrant. An overseas worker is just a specific type of this. It might be best to expand Economic migrant. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Following on this, I noticed that the Migrant worker article had no section about the Philippines. I just cobbled together a section using material taken from the Overseas Filipinos and Philippine Overseas Employment Administration articles and added it there. That could use a review and a rewrite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for a transportation task force

I am always going on trouble with Philippine transportation-related articles, which has lots of missing information. On some Philippine road articles, there are no history sections about the road. Others, like the articles about transportation systems around Metro Manila, are too short or outdated. I am proposing to add a transportation task force to collaborate with Philippine transportation-related articles.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Count me in. Also re splitting Pan-Philippine Highway, i believe Sky Harbor has the info and contacts you need. Cheers!--RioHondo (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Count me in as well. I do occasional work within this category, although mostly just for roads I know. - Alternativity (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I will rather start a new WikiProject named Philippines transport.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ignore the post above. I will rather start a Transportation Task Force as part of WP:TAMBAYAN, but a draft is still underway, including guidelines on Philippine road/street (articles, junction lists) and Philippine transportation articles.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Filipina? Help, please.

This person is changing all instances of "Filipina" to "Filipino". Is there anthing wrong with the feminine form of the word? If not, his/her edits should be reverted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd favor to use "Filipino" in all instances. Do articles about Latino women use "Latina" when describing the person? –H T D 01:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they do. For example, Justice Sotomayor famously referred to herself as a "wise latina". -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I would favor using "Filipino" as English doesn't make a distinction between genders in language, i.e. that "a" and "o" of Spanish, adopted by Filipino languages. There is no feminine versions of "Filipino" is proper English. Language is of course constantly evolving. Sometimes foreign words are used and those might eventually become loan words (see "boondocks" for a Tagalog loan word in English, shortened to "boonies"). I do not think that "Filipina" is a loan word yet. Same with "Latina". I note that my Apple dictionary includes neither while dictionary.com has "latina" but not "filipina". When I put "define:latina" into Google I get a definition but when I put in "define:filipina" I get a dating website and no defintion. On the other hand, merriam-webster.com has a definition of "Filipina". (On a side, usage note, this native American English speaker shies away using "Filipina" and never uses it outside the Philippines. It always sounds to me a bit dismissive, minimizing, not respectful.)--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Filipinisms in 2016 elections articles

Do we use Philippine English terms such as "presidentiables", "survey", "COMELEC" instead of perfectly acceptable Philippine English words such as "candidates", "opinion polls" or "commission"? How about "COC"? Is it certificate of candidacy or canvass? Or the mobile game? Do we title the polling section as "Surveys" or "Opinion polls" just like every election article in Wikipedia? Please do join in the discussion at Philippine presidential election, 2016#Reminder on acronyms and Filipinisims such as "presidentiables". –H T D 01:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I commented over there. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Massive cleanup needed for Batangas article

The article of Batangas province contains several issues. It seems much of the content (especially in the History and Culture sections) was done by a single contributor in the past, since the tone of many sentences are biased. I have done several cleanup revisions in the article, but the article is still generally messy, with redundant, incomprehensible, and obviously biased sentences. Also importantly, I am not very sure if the History and Culture (such as those under Music) sections should contain specific people native to the province. Maybe they need to be listed under a new section Notable people, (which the article lacks). If anybody could kindly help clean the entire article, that would be great. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Local Chapters of PhilWiki Community

As an affiliate organization, Philippine Wikimedia Community User group (PhilWiki Community) envisions to promote and develop Wikipedia in the Philippine languages through cost-effective, creative and innovative projects and through partnership with local government units, government agencies, academe, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector.

Our past activities include:

November 26 and 28, 2015 - 2015 Waray Wikimedia Forums held in Tacloban City and Palo, Leyte
November 28, 2015 - Wikipedia Takes Naga exhibit held at Fish Cove, Abella St., Naga City, Camarines Sur
December 1, 2015 - 3rd Waray Wikipedia Edit-a-thon held at Catbalogan, Samar
December 2, 2015 - 4th Waray Wikipedia Edit-a-thon held at Catarman, Northern Samar
December 4, 2015 - Offline Wikipedia DVD Distribution held at Minalabac Central School, Minalabac, Camarines Sur
December 19, 2015 - January 16, 2016 - Wikipedia Takes Rinconada held in the 5th district of Camarines Sur
January 16, 2016 - Rinconada Bikol Wikipedia Edit-a-thon 2, in celebration of the 15th year of Wikipedia, held in Iriga City, Camarines Sur

Join the discussion on the Proposed Local Chapters of PhilWiki Community. --Filipinayzd (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

On "Huangdoms" and "Kingdoms"

Hi everyone. I call your attention once again to the early historic settlements of the Philippines, to raise a question about terminology, specifically the use of the term "Huangdom" in the case of "Huangdom of Ma-i" and "Huangdom of Pangasinan", and the vulnerability to misunderstanding arising from the use of the term "Kingdom." This has the potential to be a long discussion so I'll just let this be my kickoff.

First: the ancient states of Ma-i and Pangasinan traded with China, and paid tribute to the court of the emperor be able to do so. So now the wikis for these ancient states are being referred to as "Sinified states". The Chinese records referred to their rulers as "Huangs", so these have been labelled "Huangdoms". I submit that both are assumptions. Trade with China does not automatically mean Sinification.

Second: I am not sure whether we have reached a consensus as to whether our ancient states (including the Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo, for example) should be called "kingdoms", lest they be implied to be monarchies in the western sense. If we have, can someone direct me to the conversation where the consensus was achieved please? :D Otherwise, I submit that the term is confusing and that we should probably come up with some more broader term for the Philippine ancient states. - Alternativity (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to my mind is ask an expert regarding this. Personally, I never heard of the term "huangdom" and I think it is not even an English word. If there are no reliable sources regarding the term then it is original research and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. --Jojit (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I recently made a research on these and I agree that the classification of early political states in the archipelago do not qualify as a huangdom or kingdom. The rajah/datu or whatever titleholder he was is not certainly a king, technically speaking. To make the discussion short, I came to the conclusion that these states at least have the barangay system as titles and societal structures almost coincide everywhere it was practiced. Even the Sultan of Sulu had a predecessor named Rajah Baginda. However, I do not suggest that these states be given a barangay title, e.g. Barangay Tondo. I suggest that further research be made.

I disagree with the notion that there were Sinified states. Rather, while they may be recorded by Chinese writers, there is still the issue of the accuracy of the reports. A gift may be interpreted as a tribute. China is not alone in this practice as the Majapahit also claimed to have had tributes from these states, but recent research argues that these claims stop as claims as it is yet to be proved. Reading the Laguna Copperplate, it would seem these doubts have to be considered. Arius1998 (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Arius1998 (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to go by whichever the WP:RS go by? Which terms do they use? Well, if they're all Chinese sources, are we supposed to be stuck with the terms that they use? Which translations are we using? –H T D 16:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh. Come to think of it, there's the point that needs to be made. No sources use "Huangdom". There are references to the rulers as Huang (which the Chinese sources sometimes translate as "King", and sometimes as "Chief"). Will check further. - Alternativity (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Huangdom looks like a bad transliteration. Places where princes rule aren't "Princedoms", same with Rajahs and "Rajahdoms" (rajahnate should be the right term). Huang doesn't appear to be of much help. –H T D 07:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not advise the use of huangdom or kingdom, even for the sake of classification at par with standards in other areas. As for princedoms, I think principalities would be the correct term. While W. H. Scott used it to refer to the more complex societies ruled by rajahs/datus, I still advise against using it here, unless it has been general consensus to do so. Once more, I suggest further research on this matter. Arius1998 (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Just updating everyone: I have moved "Huangdom of Ma-i" to simply "Ma-i" and "Huangdom of Pangasinan" to Luyag na Kaboloan, respectively. I think simply moving Ma-i would be agreeable to most edits, so I've decided to be bold. In the case of Kaboloan/Pangasinan, the article lede identified Lubag na Kaboloan as the local name, and I moved the article to that title as preferable to the initial "Huangdom" title. I'll have to do more resarch to further understand the term "Luyag", and the relationship between the names "Kaboloan" and "Pangasinan", so I'm not excluding the possibility that some more title movement is possible based on what literature I find. (The online articles I've found all vaguely reference Scott, so I shall see if I can figure out where in the originals the relevant discussions are.) Or of course, if anyone wants to help out and do fixes to the two articles, that would be great too. Just keeping everyone looped in. Thanks - Alternativity (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Maynila, Tondo, and Namayan

Now that the "Huangdom" issue is somewhat behind us, I would like to solicit feedback here on new names for Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, and Kingdom of Namayan. The name format, as argued above, is an anachronism - specifically, a reference to the Westphalian system. Several editors, myself included, have raised concerns about this innacuracy. The present ledes of the pages Ma-i, Luyag na Kaboloan, Kingdom of Maynila, Kingdom of Tondo, and Kingdom of Namayan have newly been edited, thanks to Pare Mo, with the term "polity" replacing "kingdom", but as a piped link leading to Mandala_(Southeast_Asian_political_model). A lot of work is still needed to rid the pages of anachronisms, and in some cases, content actually belonging to fringe theories. However, a major next step is to remove the term "kingdom" from the article titles. I am thus proposing the renaming of Kingdom of Namayan simply to "Namayan" (over a redirect), and of Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo to Maynila (historical polity) and Tondo(historical polity), respectively. Namayan is reasonable enough, I think. But I find "historical polity" awkward enough that I want to solicit people's thoughts on the rename rather than just being bold and doing it myself. For your information and comments, folks. - Alternativity (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Tondo right now, and the infobox identifies the first as a rājānate and the second as a lakanate. Rājānate of Manila (or Rajahnate of Manila or Manila (rājānate)/Manila (rajahnate)), then, seems good, and so does Lakanate of Tondo (or Tondo (lakanate)). I've seen rājānate used often enough in scholarly literature to know it's a widely accepted term. Now, I can't say the same for lakanate, but for that I blame my own limited exposure.

There's also an issue with using sovereign to refer to the pre-Westphalian polities themselves. In precolonial Southeast Asia (and in most of the pre-Westphalian world), it was the king (term used very loosely here) that was the sovereign, not the polity (today's sovereign state) itself. --Pare Mo (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Eliminated (almost) all instances of "Kingdom" for historical precolonial Maynila. Also removed the image showing the baybayin rendition of "Maynilad" since it uses the Virama kudlit style which was introduced in the Spanish colonial period (the one that utilizes the cross (+)). I am in favor of using "Manila (rajahnate)", I don't know for lakanate either.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

While it has been progress to have moved on from the huangdom/kingdom issue, it is still of doubt to use either rajahnate or lakanate in this situation. Is there any reference that says the paramount rulers of these areas had always been a rajah or a lakan? In addition, which references use the rajahnate/lakanate classification so as we can cite them? As for polity, it is not evident that the barangay system had been traditionally a rule of many (as polity would reflect) despite the existence of a council. How about a disambiguation instead? Once more, I suggest further research be made. Arius1998 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Arius1998, have you had a chance to look at Mandala (Southeast Asian political model)? I'm not sure how to blend this with "polity" to come up with a more apt description. (I'm personally more comfortable with using the word Polity and linking to Mandala, since I have never seen Mandala used that way. But the Mandala description is a perfect fit, as far as all my readings are concerned. I dislike the word Rajahnate myself and would rather not see it used in the article titles, but it seems there's support for the use of it. So I haven't taken a side against it yet. Lakanate, IMHO, that's just plain word invention already. - Alternativity (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)<------------ Position now withdrawn, please see next bulletpoint.

I did more reading on Polity and Mandala (just the wiki pages), and I withdraw all previous positions. I am now suggesting we rename all the articles "Subject (Historical Polity)" if they have modern descendant states (as in the case of Manila and Tondo), and just plain "Subject" if they don't in the case of (Namayan and Ma-i). OR we could just standardize and use "Subject (Historical Polity)" format for the whole lot of articles. No pipe-linking to Mandala, which is probably accurate in the cases of Namayan and Mai and Tondo, but which would still need counter checking of sources and is probably just more confusing when used in the article title anyway. I'm confident enough in this that I've moved "Kingdom of Namayan" to "Namayan" already as this seems uncontroversial, propose to wp:be bold and move the articles to "Maynila (historical polity)" and "Tondo (historical polity)"by Thursday unless two or more people object, or some definitive source is used as a counterargument. Appropriate notices have been added to the talk page of the articles. - Alternativity (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. As I did some research, it seems that we are the only ones who would be using "historical polity" as a classification. Of course, while the closest, and perhaps simplest, that I can think of is the Chiefdom, what about the use of "historical entity" as a more neutral term? As it is observed, "polity" first arises in Europe, and "mandala" is considered (perhaps not universally) as the Southeast Asian equivalent. However, since it is not advisable to be using labels without exhaustive research to justify it, I am for the use of the more neutral and simpler terms. Arius1998 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How about "Historical State"? Or just "Historical|? Chiefdom is definitely controversial and most likely an innacurate placement on the continuum. - Alternativity (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the term "chiefdom" has somewhat acquired a pejorative meaning. Degrading, as I see it. However, I do not think I can fully agree with the use of "historical state" as there is no existence of the term "state" at the time. While "historical" may do, perhaps "historical entity" would still be a good option. How do the other editors see this issue? Arius1998 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 election task force

Hi everyone. With the 2016 elections ramping up soon, Wikimedia Philippines is looking to organize an election task force to help keep our articles in order. More specifically, the task force will do four things:

Monitor Philippine election-related articles (especially articles on candidates) for signs of biased editing by candidates or their campaign staff
Maintain and create/expand articles related to the election, including adding in the latest developments either from the campaign trail or from the COMELEC
Translate articles into Philippine languages
Update the vote counts when the results come in

On the fourth point, the goal is to have Wikipedia's results reflect the COMELEC's official count in as close to real time as possible, so as people can go to us for information on the election. If this is something that we can do, we'll try to get as many people as we can from around the country so we have enough coverage, and we can train people on how to edit Wikipedia. What do you guys think? :) (I should let our resident election editors Howard the Duck, Iloilo Wanderer, Hariboneagle927 and Supergabbyshoe, as well as other editors like BhlJRama, Regrobvmagtibay and Raigeiki55, know about this development, and see if they'd be willing to help get this off the ground. :P) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Count me in on this project. Nice. - Supergabbyshoe (talk2me) 05:52, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Count me in too. This is for all elections right? Not just 2016? Although of course we will be focus on the 2016 edition in the coming months.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, this will be a rolling project, yes. Whatever we lay down for the 2016 election can be recycled for 2019, 2022 and all future elections, as the ultimate goal of this project (at least for me) is eventually having election coverage of our own and securing the COMELEC's support for that. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

While I may not be as active as the others, I am interested to participate in this task force. Arius1998 (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening the Wikimedia Philippines community space

Hi, everyone. On behalf of Wikimedia Philippines, I have an announcement to make.

For a while now your chapter has maintained on a quiet back street in Makati a back office where we keep all our equipment, as well as maintain the chapter library where Wikipedians can borrow our reference materials. However, we feel that the community would benefit greatly from having a space of its own, where Wikipedians could meet one another and edit the project together, and at the same time find a quiet place to relax.

It is my great pleasure therefore to let everyone know that we are now opening our back office as a community space for the entire Filipino Wikimedia community. We have been planning this for a while now, and we hope that this space will become an integral part of building our community and bringing us ever closer together.

The space is normally open on weekends, when members of the WMPH Board of Trustees are usually present, although please let us know beforehand if you're planning to drop by. We have ample space (and facilities, including air conditioning and Wi-Fi) to host Wikipedians on a regular basis, and we're planning to host meetups in the space soon. Please consider this as an invitation to come over, and we would love for you guys to drop by sometime! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Bayan Ko dating and Spanish lyrics

First, the Walang Sugat article says it was written a few years before Bayan Ko, which seems to be an addition.

The English and Spanish lyrics were formerly in the article, then someone removed them, and now I've restored the previous iteration. Source for Spanish lyrics here: http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2014/06/01/1329687/small-correction-reveals-important-detail

There's also an English translation of the Spanish lyrics, as opposed to an English translation of the Filipino. Anyone better-versed in Spanish want to touch it up? -- 103.14.62.197 (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternate Spanish to English translation: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BALITA-USA/conversations/messages/1444 -- 103.14.62.197 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ferdinand Marcos

Is our article on Ferdinand Marcos being steadily 'whitewashed' in this election year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BushelCandle (talk • contribs) 23:39, February 28, 2016

Yes. Be vigilant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk • contribs) 22:39, March 1, 2016

Greetings. There seems to be some conflict in the Ferdinand Marcos article. I already laid down my opinion on the matter months ago. I wonder if it was even regarded. Please help in the resolution of their issue/s at the article's talk page. Thank you. Arius1998 (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability of radio stations

Are all radio stations notable just because they exist? Recently, I've seen several articles being created about them. But when you look them up, there are little or no information that can be found. Search results suggest social media and live streaming sites and sometimes the website of the network that owns them but I think they're not enough especially that they're primary sources; they're associated with the subject. Sixth o f March 00:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I noticed too. Some radio stations articles usually edit other information (ex. radio station's history) without any further reliable source, Supergabbyshoe (talk2me) 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Jar burial

At a 1981 exhibit of the Manunggul Jar at UCLA in Los Angeles, it was stated that jar burial (secondary burial) was a common practice at one time. Does anyone know of any connection to the Plain of Jars and the Hmong? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Agusan Image

The same 1981 exhibit at UCLA also showed the Agusan Image, which is usually housed in the Field Museum (The Agusan Image). There were dozens of items, including jewelry and textiles at the exhibit showing how rich and distinctive our culture is. If they should ever display the Agusan Image again, we ought to take a picture of it for an article. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 08:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

President Imelda Marcos

Was Imelda Marcos once an unofficial president of the Philippines? See these edits [1] -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not according to the article whose lede says "ppeople as having held the presidency of a government intended to represent the Philippines, but their terms of office are not counted by the Philippine government as part of the presidential succession." I reverted the additions and also made other change. Talk:List of unofficial Presidents of the Philippines--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Banton is now a good article

Thanks to the efforts of Lawrence ruiz, the article on the municipality of Banton in Romblon is now a good article! Kudos! He is now working on making the Romblon article itself into a good article. —seav (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention Seav! I need all the help I can get in proofreading and copyediting the Romblon article. Looking forward to your support. — Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

conjugal dictatorship listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conjugal dictatorship. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Jane Ryan"

The usage and primary topic of Jane Ryan is under discussion. Is Imelda Marcos the primary topic? See the discussion at talk:Jane Ryan -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

EDCA in "History of the Philippines"

Why is the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement highlighted in Template:History of the Philippines as a defining historical event? It's there, wikilinked as "Return of U.S. military bases." I understand that it may be viewed as a defining historical from a post-colonial perspective, but a post-colonial perspective precisely that: a point of view. I don't deny that EDCA is important, but I'm not sure it can be universally accepted as an era-defining event - in fact, accommodating that perspective indicates a slant towards a specific way of interpreting the History of the Philippines. I think a discussion on this would be helpful? And perhaps some sort of agreement can be reached which would apply to the way our history is outlined? - Alternativity (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I would say that is giving WP:Undue Weight to EDCA. The Visiting Forces Agreement is probably more important. Certainly it is false to say that U.S. military returned the Philippines after EDCA. The U.S. military has had hundreds of men and women here for years, see e.g. Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines, often in US-maintained and -controlled facilities on Phil bases. I removed the reference from the template. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Iloilo Wanderer. I just came from there. I'm starting to think a comprehensive review of changes to the template would be helpful. Seems to me a bunch of useful links were removed and a nationalist bias introduced. Huh. Will try and dig into this further when I can, but flagging it here in the meantime. - Alternativity (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Conjugal dictatorship"

Imeldific (talk · contribs) has created a new article at Conjugal dictatorship, which you may wish to evaluate -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this topic top-importance to WP:PHILIPPINES as it is currently rated? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I vote "no". I'd say low importance, actually. But others may disagree with me there. I would not find a "mid-importance" rating totally inappropriate. (Although by that definition we'd end up with a bloated "mid-importance" category. - Alternativity (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Some new articles needing attention

Articles created by this user on Philippines geographical places need to be improved - in terms of content, formatting and sourcing. Regards, 103.6.159.71 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing information from the Leni Robredo wiki

Hi all. It's come to my attention that information about the non-political engagements of vice presidential candidate Leni Robredo has been removed from the article. For comparison, look at User:RioHondo's edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leni_Robredo&oldid=703700650 and the current article. Upon initial examination it seems the information was removed by User_talk:Shhhhwwww!!. Disclosure: I made significant contributions to the article prior to this, including some of the information removed. But I am not formally connected to the subject of the wiki article. I realize the edit I point to above isn't exactly the neatest (my edits usually aren't, in general), but it IS more comprehensive, and the removal of the information was without explanation. Not sure how to move forward as it has been a while since the edit. Any suggestions?- Alternativity (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The article was a mess and unsourced and full of WP:Trivia. She was down in the surveys before the clean-up and look where she is now. Better than Marcos. :) Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There are still no headings for what she was doing between graduation in '86 to her participation in politics in ... was it '05? I do recall there that there WERE sources for those sections - Star, Inquirer and Rappler personality profile articles. My major concern here is that the article goes straight from "early life" to "political career", making it appear at first glance like she dived straight into politics, when, in fact, she was better known for her NON-GOVERNMENT work. One could argue that most people know her as a politician, but that would not be a NPOV. By omitting the period in which she was doing civil work in the private sector, the article simply does not capture the chronology of her life accurately. In fact, I don't get a sense of chronology from the article at all. Nor am I clear, without appropriate headings, exactly how the list of advocacies and achievements is organized. - Alternativity (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's in her personal life. That part is not her public life. The cirrent article is nice as is. Clean and easy to read. Too much headings are messy. Make it simple. She'll rise in the surveys. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It's no longer "personal life" if there are references about it? This is, quite simply, censorship of content.

Also, I'm for the status quo as much as the next sheltered middle class English-speaking part of the bourgeoisie, but I'm surprised neither of you (or anyone that has read this discussion) has condemned that the article was hijacked for political purposes. So much for WP:NPOV, eh? –H T D 17:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds of candidates out there. If anyone has time to fix them then good for them. Anything outside of the lady's political life is part of her personal life and should be placed in that section at the bottom of the article. If it has no references/sources then it is probably WP:OR so it must be removed. That article looked way more of an advertisement before. The current one is actually better. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

H, well, that's why I brought it up to the attention of the group in the first place. I leave the actual textual calling-out to the discretion of the group, including if I'm the one that has to be called out. -Alternativity (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Shhhhwwww!!, quite aside from whether the media consider it public - and they DO consider it public, the references are mainstream media units, WORK IS PUBLIC. CIVIC WORK, which is what NGO work IS, is PUBLIC BY DEFINITION. What part of STOP UNILATERALLY IMPOSING YOUR OPINION do you not understand? I'm as sure as I can be about my own stance, but I don't dare approach a potentially contentious edit without seeking concurring opinions first. That said, I do not understand how on earth you think a politician can only be a politician, to the point that nothing else in that person's life is relevant to civic life or to the public. - Alternativity (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Personal life" would include info such as who Robredo's former spouse is, her children and personal recreational hobbies (backed with credible source of course). The very nature of civic work would tend some readers to have more positive opinion on Robredo (giving a similar effect to "advertising"). That said, Robredo's civic work in the private sector as long as sourced shouldn't be removed. Better watch out for peacock words. Her civic works (and any other candidates or non-politicians) can be presented in an objective manner with minimal promotional tone.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "public" is not synonymous with "government". "Public figures" and "public work" includes such Mother Teresa, Donald Trump, the Red Cross, INC, unions, etc. Someone can be a public figure doing public work without being government. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to start a Heritage task force

Hi! I'd like to know if there are any objections if I will create a Heritage task force under WikiProject Philippines (aka, this Tambayan). The scope of this task force will be all articles related to the cultural and natural heritage of the Philippines. This includes articles on the World Heritage Sites like Vigan and Tubbataha Reef, as well as significant structures, sites, and items that fall under the National Cultural Heritage Act. We will also cover natural heritage such as National Geological Monuments declared by DENR.

Much of the task force's activities will be spearheaded by Wikimedia Philippines, but you do not need to be a member of the chapter to participate in the task force. Here's a short summary of the chapter's heritage-related initiatives. WMPH previously piloted a cultural heritage project from 2014 to 2015 and that project's output includes almost 300 new articles, around 500 improved articles, 37 DYKs and 4 Good articles (full list here). In addition, we were able to contribute over 5,500 images to Commons. Currently, WMPH has a WikiProject in Wikidata to input into Wikidata information about the historical markers installed by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines. You can see a map showing our current progress.

So, yeah, the task force is meant to provide a framework for monitoring the chapter's heritage-related initiatives. But again, you do not need to be a member of the chapter to help out in the proposed task force. :-) —seav (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No objections, I'm all in. - Alternativity (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Alternativity. Since there are no objections, I will proceed with creating this task force. :-) —seav (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue about official seal of Municipality of Silago

Recently,I upload the seal of Municipality of Silago. I discovered that I am the only one yet to upload this (I cannot found another seal in the Internet), since i know this town a lot. Can anyone know how my work (seal) to be licensed under the Government of the Philippines? Thanks in Advance and God Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersabre 18 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Clean up the Filipino actor biographies

Someone should create a taskforce to remove the categories like [[Category:ABS-CBN Corporation]] and [[Category:GMA Network]] on the actor's or actress's biography page. Clean up on the filmography tables, WP:POV check, and general edits on the biographies. Strict implementation of 'No Network column on the filmography tables,' these network, if not network wars, are not very neutral. Plus, remove non-free images on biography pages claimed by fan uploaders as their work. 112.201.223.226 (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Romblon is now a good article

Thanks to the efforts of Lawrence ruiz and with the help of Sanglahi86, the article on Romblon is now a good article! —seav (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Kudos.--Jondel (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency with the seals and flags of LGUs.

This has been bugging me for a while but a handful of LGUS displays a newer seal and an older version of the flag. Such as in Romblon and Maguindanao. From what I know almost all Philippine LGU flags are just the LGU seal on a plain background. It's okay if its the same seal rendered by a different graphic artist like in the case of Bulacan. I proposed removing the flags if the seal's inconsistent with the one on the flag beside it until sources say otherwise that they keep using the older flag with an older seal.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Since there is no objection so far, I will go ahead and deal with this issue.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Should we lump "Government Work" and "Civil Society Involvement" under the broad heading "Activism"?

I've opened up a new discusion at Talk:Leni Robredo because the headings "Government Work" and "Civil Society Involvement" were mashed together into the (IMHO vague) heading "Activism." Seeking the community's inputs on the aforementioned talk page. - Alternativity (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Something wrong with the Info box for Maja Salvador

When I clicked on her page, I noticed the infobox with her photograph is not there, what happened ? (725edwards) 10:18, 12 May 2016 (CST)

Fixed, apparently someone accidentally messed up the coding of the infobox.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Philipandrew

User:Philipandrew is back and is causing WP:disruption in the Philippines article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

PSA has finally released the 2015 census report

The Philippine Statistics Authority has finally released the 2015 census report. Time to start updating Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items. —seav (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Seav. Let's do it right by updating Wikidata only, and linking to it if not done so already. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

To update Wikidata, DO NOT REMOVE THE OLD CENSUS DATA, but add click "+add". Once the new census data is added, click the little symbol to the left of the new population number (see image below) and set it to "Preferred rank" (so that only this value is imported to WP). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Filipinos, etc.

FYI, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Spanish Filipinos, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Vicente S. Santos, Jr.

I have added this project's banner to Talk:Vicente S. Santos, Jr. and I am wondering if someone would mind taking a look at the article and assessing it. Much of the content seems to have been added by an editor who is closely connected to Santos, so it may require some cleanup to bring it more in line with Wikipedia's MOS and NPOV. Any suggestions that anyone has on how to improve the article would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Does this language really exist? Sugbuano language

Sugbuano language is a new article about a "mixture" of Waray-Waray and Cebuano, probably similar to how Taglish is a mixture of Tagalog and English. This may be a valid article or not, but I can't tell. Googling "Sugbuano", which is the Cebuano term for Cebuano, obviously turns up nothing that I can see. —seav (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is a Philippine Star column that talks about how Waray is mixed with Cebuano in the author's home city of Abuyog, Leyte. No use of the term "Sugbuano", though. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again.. DWBB Hoax. (Galing mag-imbento)

Hi guys! It's been a long time. I just want you to know that Nerhoestebat is creating another hoax station again, implying to DWBB. Although I knew that you don't have any idea about our radio stations here in the Philippines, but to be honest, I never heard from GMA Network that they already launched an AM station in Baguio City. But when I found out that they didn't announce anything, I suspected it already that this is only invented by a user. Curently, I proposed a speedy deletion of it. I just want you to know for the fact of this. Thanks and regards. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 01:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Organization of Government of the Philippines and related articles

Hi. Let me start by saying I'm confused by the use of "Departments" in the headings referring to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches within the Government of the Philippines article. I'm not sure how this influences the article coverage of the Judicial and Legislative branches, but it certainly creates a problem in the coverage of the "Executive Department" (which IMHO should be "Executive Branch"). To be specific: the article effectively reduces the executive branch to only the 19 Executive_departments_of_the_Philippines. There are thus no mentions of the three Constitutional Commissions, or of the various (non-department) Offices attached to the office of the President (say, OPAPP, or the MMDA, or the CCP, or the NCCA), which I believe all fall under the Executive Branch and are significant enough to merit mention in the article. (I'm uncertain if the control of Government-owned and controlled corporations also falls under the executive branch. At any rate, I feel GOCCs should at least be mentioned in a sentence in the article.) In light of these issues and others which might arise, may I request a broad discussion of issues regarding the organization of articles falling under the purview of the Government of the Philippines? Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In theory, the constitutional commissions are independent of the three main "branches" (let's stick to this term from here on out). I could live with them on separate section, at the same level with the three branches. I'd also have a separate section for other constitutionally mandated bodies that do not appear in Articles VI, VII and VIII such as the Ombudsman and the CHR.

As for GOCCs I'd live with a separate section, at the same level with the three main branches, constitutional commissions, and other constitutional bodies. –H T D 17:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Philippines v. China

Surprisingly there is no edits in favor of the Philippines. The article is mostly edited by a Chinese editor.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Filipino actors and actresses

Filmography tables could use a clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.89.125 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur, and add that lots of articles on Filipino actors and actresses need work, in general. Unless the actor/actress in question does only independent work, the articles tend to sound promotional, and/or are written on the presumption that the reader is familiar with the network concerned. That said, this is tons and tons of work. - Alternativity (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Like guest appearances for example. That alone adds up to the cruft. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on election canvass articles

Hello, all. Can somebody please explain why Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2010 and Congressional canvass for the Philippine presidential election, 2016 are not violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE number 3? If no reasonable argument is given, these lists should be merged into the respective election articles. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A reasonable argument would be there's "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", which the 2010 and 2016 articles seem to be doing. It's not just boring list of tables. –H T D 13:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would it be necessary to show the copy-pasted data you can find online? Maybe if it would be relevant to the discussion, some statistics could be mentioned but the tables right now are complete overkill. If somebody wants the numbers for reference, they can just go to the site used as a source right? The first part of the articles explain the process of counting votes, which is already explained in Elections in the Philippines. The second part lists the members of the canvassing committee and the third part narrates the actual canvassing process of the elections, which can be included in their relevant election articles. What I'm asking basically is 'what supports the notability of these canvassing articles?' Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

On a superficial glance, I think that these articles are proper WP:SPINOFF articles and deserve their existence. They contain detailed sourced narratives of the official canvassing that would overwhelm the parent article if they were merged. Now I don't have an opinion on whether the detailed tables of CoC data should be removed or not, but I'm thinking WP:NOTPAPER would suffice. —seav (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

seav (talk · contribs) These canvass articles don't exactly qualify as spin-off articles. The three sections under "Proceedings" can easily be edited into the main election articles under "Results". And what do you mean by WP:NOTPAPER with regards to the tables? I'd like to point out that if you scroll down a bit on that same page, you get to what Wikipedia is not which also includes why these tables shouldn't be here but rather on Wikisource. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there are 2 questions here:

Should the canvassing article be separate from the main article?
Should the large table of vote tallies be included in Wikipedia?

I'd like to discuss the second question first. It seems you don't think this data belongs in Wikipedia. And your reason is that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and specifically the part on "excessive listings of statistics". Well, I argue that this is not excessive. First of all, it is not unsurprising to show a breakdown of votes by geography and candidate as a 2-D table as supplementary information for an election article. For example, see this table for the 2012 U.S. presidential election, or this table for the 2015 U.K. Parliament election. If this kind of table is good enough for the U.S. and U.K., it's good enough for the Philippines. Second, this data is not indiscriminate. As stated by WP:DISCRIMINATE, "an indiscriminate collection of information is one gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner". The vote table is definitely not indiscriminate information. So I argue that this data can belong in Wikipedia.

As for the first question, if you merge this into the main article, then it will overwhelm the rest of the article. For this kind of situation, it is best to provide a summary, then have a WP:SPINOFF article providing the details, which is exactly what the current situation is. I really can't see why you think this is not a spin-off situation. —seav (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiPilipinas

It really angered and saddened me a lot that the WikiPilipinas.org of Vibal Publishing is now like a Falls of Hinulugang Taktak, there are too much garbage (or rather should I say vandalism and hoax litters) contain on that site. I hope that they will fix it soon enough. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 04:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Lol thank god Wikipedia exists.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention the rampant spam by randomly-named bots and all that. Then again it isn't Wikipedia's concern if Vibal practically left their project to rot; imo they could've pulled the plug or sold it to another organisation who can look after the site better. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That's kinda sad. I thought they could become the more lenient version of en.wiki but not too lenient --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lenticel:, you mean lenient in vandalism? I don't want to see that on Tagalog Wikipedia. (Ipagtanggol natin yung Filipino Wikipedia, dahil may nagbabalak na magkaroon din ng bandalismo doon). Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 02:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I think it ought to have been lenient in inclusion of Pinoy articles. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Understood. But you know, the only user who vandalizing that site (while checking out some vandalized articles there) was none other than the username Roman. (I think it had a connection with the previous blocked user). Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 03:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No one took Wikipilipinas seriously when it was launched. I think it's one of Vibal's "ningas-kugon" projects. Vibal and Wikipilipinas' admins were very active from the start but as the years passed by, they were no where to be seen. The most active users there lately are those editors with unstable minds that were blocked here (ex: User:Bertrand101). -WayKurat (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you @WayKurat:. Because most of the edits there are really contributed on what we called in Filipino sobrang makakati at malilikot ang isipan. I have an account there too, but it seems that I'm the only one noticing that kind of behavior with that site. They also blocked me there once with a reason that I'm vandalizing some article (though hindi naman totoo yun! instead inaayos ko pa nga sana at sinusubukang isalba). I will not let them vandalize the Tagalog Wikipedia as well, even though some of us are very active here in English Wikipedia. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 04:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's basically a "dead site running" to put it another way. Just as how longtime YTMND users described the site when it was rendered irrelevant by YouTube, Imgur and a few others. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to close this discussion, if they cannot really maintain that site, they should turn it down like a demolished squatters area. So no one (even hoaxers and vandalizers) will no longer gaining their materialistic thinking and shaping other peoples mind just by believing their hoax articles. (Ika nga'y parang naglolokohan na lang tayong lahat dito. Gayong ang mga taong nagkokon-tribute sa sayt na iyon ay pawang mga may sariling mundo na!). They're just only wasting time, money, and most importantly EFFORT on maintaining that site which that is now mas malala pa sa Ilog Pasig na dinudumihan lang ng mga tao. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 05:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As what I've said earlier, Vibal could've just pulled the plug and take the site out of its misery. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think keeping the site up provides those banned from Wikipedia a place to go to and keeps them off our backs. —seav (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That, my friend, is what I call a silver lining. :V Blake Gripling (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That indeed is a silver and I thank my lucky stars for it on a reasonable frequent basis.Alternativity (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

LOL. --Filipinayzd (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about article "MCA Records"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:MCA Records#Splitting MCA PH, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. (Almost, because of some section.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Concern Only (Don't take it seriously)

Hi guys again! I've just noticing another contributor here in English Wikipedia, his/her name is Appable. No offense, but I'm also observing this guy. The way he/she talks/expresses his/her feelings to a contributor name Kazaro, I felt like I'm making a big mistake here (which is obviously I'am, but I'm only thinking and doing what is the right thing to do and what is not). I felt like he/she's pursuing that editor about Kazaro's contribution. I checked the mentioned user and founding out that he is also making a false edits over and over. I couldn't help it! It seems that he's accepting more of his contributions, even if some of them are not true. What should I do guys? Am I really did a bad thing though I know to myself that sometimes I did, but most of all doing the right thing and just only assuming good faith? Need your comments to this guys, I'm going to retire at editing here on English Wikipedia soon and somehow, focusing on Tagalog Wikipedia. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 01:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Philippines v. China

Need your help in talk page. Please see International reactions to Philippines v. China. The article needs to be split for readability. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

Any members of the History of the Philippines Task Force here to review all the edits made by Philipandrew2? The user is insisting on the pre-1521 "Classical period" as the formation or establishment of the Philippines with the different "classical states" as the origin of the Philippines. This is pure revisionism and goes against the consensus on following mainstream historiography as established in the last discussion here. See also his other propaganda now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Revisionism ? (Nope Just putting everything in their Proper place According to Sources available in wikipedia itself )

About my edits , As a member/Editor of wikipedia, i read a lot of Statements in this particular page Philippine-related articles, As i'm observing the Philippines article i found some flaws specially in Philippines ,

(the following are in tagalog for the balace of speech)

Nakita ko yung Infobox na talagang me mali (flaws yung naka staement), Kaya wala halos Konti ang nalalaman ng kabataan sa panahon ngayon dahil sa kakulangan ng impormasyon . (sorry for my Grammar) Our history is Perfectly Incomplete Because some of the Users insist and intensified the Facts about Colonialism matters that they forgot the History of origin. Even theirs a Various Kingdoms and polity its been a part of the Philippine History.

Our history is completely flawed as i read the Philippines article!

And i put some Footnotes based on the article itself but some users tries to revert it because of (sterotype) form of history (under the name Common).

Giving example

in the Ancient times theirs Shan , Tongu and Arakan Mon states and various states before , that makes the present day Burma (myanmar)

It means because of various City states was had their own kingdoms in the past So it means they should not be part of burma history because its not burma (myanmar)formed yet?

the various kingdoms of Indonesia (including Sri vijaya and Majapahit) and various muslims states which have its own rulers and theirs no Indonesia yet as it only exist (as only 1940s) but they still include the Ancient past it in Indonesian history as Early History

Some of our neighbors had a proud heritage because they know their origins and they know their glorious ancient past , Im proud of freedom agaist colonialist too but i want in complete form (Where an asian country not just like our neighbors in pacific islands that freed by us - britain itself). we have a colorful past.

Why we are not including the complete form of history we present here? We only intensified the U.S. favored history which we just granted freedom by Colonizers instead? And when you read your articles it started in Pre colonial that have various kingdoms (which is Classical kingdoms and City states ) which is true we have sources , I have references on my statement , My point if you get was Pleas Complete the History timeline, For the sake of Kids who reading wikipedia .. and Schools in the present day are now focusing on the Pre-Colonial coverage of History So they know the proper views of knowing the origin of Philippine Archipelago. Be open now on change i dont vandalized , wiki i dont do revisions for nothing or meaning less. ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

Your comments are politically loaded. That is not how we write and edit articles here per WP:NPOV. We are all only after the truth here, and the truth is the Philippines was NOT established until 1565. Thats certainly not what they teach in the schools where i went to. And wikipedia is not a place for Original Research per WP:OR. Follow mainstream and we be fine.--RioHondo (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I dont want to violate a debate , This is the Statement The first millennium saw the rise of the port principalities and their growth into maritime states composed of autonomous barangays independent of or allied with larger nations which were either Malay thalassocracies led by datus, tributary states of China ruled by huangs or Indianized kingdoms governed by rajahs.^[1]

Their no philippines yet but i trying to analize If you mean there are a Foreigners in the Philippines archipelago ? or u tried to mean that their nor civilized and no nations exist in realty (sorry on my term) By the way ... Its a neutral pint of view im not bias thats why im try to correct this article ... i got a pont ihope its not ended to be in the list o lamest edit wars, I have sources to not be bias it has a sources . ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)) ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk))

I dont do historical debates, i just know what is official and mainstream. And i dont want to keep repeating myself, this is no different from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Philippines with you being the author of that article also.--RioHondo (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Philippines part -2

I think its now time to change , As the textbook changes in the Philippines and i only based it in my research we must follow the Changes and new evidences Sources Like the books published in the Local schools which now extended the coverage of that era the point , To know the Importance of that era . and it is also stated in the header of the Article itself and the other various Statements in the History of the philippines itself it will be meaning less if we not going to include this in article to be more accurate and Reliable. i hope you all know what im trying to say, Thank you! ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

Umm, no issues here and this is nothing new. They teach pre-Hispanic history in schools BUT what they dont teach is that the country was formed from those classical states that you are suggesting. So dont get too excited on pre-hispanic, its nothing new.--RioHondo (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is to complete the list of history right to origin , not what you think as i told our history is obscure and Incomplete .({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

The issue here is not whether the Philippine history is complete, it is the establishment or formation of the Philippine state/territory. It is also not about excluding ancient rulers in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of the Philippines. It is about only including the rulers of the Philippines.--RioHondo (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

list rullers of the philippines are the complete list from to kings up to prime ministers until the presidents not vandalism not a hoax so We need to hear my voice i hope council will be fair to hear it They are native in the philippines Unless they are Germans they are chinese or arabs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipandrew2 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Check out Indonesia's. Formation: Dutch East India Company 1602. Not Sri Vijaya or Madjapahit or whatever. Sorry to say, you are truly a revisionist propagandist.--RioHondo (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well check out the Sources on the Myanmar (early history) , Singapore (Formation) Philippines Nepal (Un unified) China has many kingdoms too china was only recognized as a name after the Qing dynasty on the articles you just a sterotypist deletionist ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

Of course, the small island of Singapore had been united under a previous polity. And Myanmar's Pagan Kingdom practically covered the whole territory of the present day Myanmar. You can't say the same for the Philippines until 1565. This is basic history.--RioHondo (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you got my point?, India has not united too , their are various kingdoms and singapore They included their Formation same as classical kingdoms and city states in the philippines they start as polity too, right from the start = complete up to their beak up with malaysia. its not what you think about . and the other countries i mention I know where not united before spain comes but we have to complete the story right from the start By the way ...i think you and shrrrwww sounds the same? (03:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)) ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

This is enough for today i think if we just like Rat king tangled in a tails of Issues Plus you didn't get my point. good day ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

WP:OR issue? i think you should review our accusations , that's why we have sources with our words / statements based on our references with due to copyright . ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC))

Yes, Problematic editor Philipandrew and master of hoaxes and sockpuppeteering. WP:OR which "includes analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.--RioHondo (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Woah riohondo , WP:OR is not valid because the references i made was from the Available in wiki it self you know WP:Copyedit / Wikipedia:Basic copyediting plus the References does not violates the non-free content policy (NFCC) i told, the And theirs nothing to do with the Long dead User:Philipandrew† , You just Arguing on me by means of Long Dead account... (too bad), BUT Did you Getting my POINT Uppon Our Topic we Debating here? Dont Use a Personal attacks using a Dead account, ..

Lahat ng artikulo sa wiki ay nakikita ng admin kaya alamnila ang Hoax sa reliable source at Sanggunian, at nagtataka nga ako papano naging hoax mga reference ko ? mga sinasabi mo? ikaw O Sayo din siguro yung account na nag pa block sakin last month . And i dont want to argure with Narrow /Shallow Minded user who do not understand My point, if u read the articles it self, you may realize that your the problematic once . )

As you stated today may i consider this a violation of the WP:Harassment from a user/editor , I dont want to intensified this argument and again i don't do a hoaxes /vandalasim/lies/ propaganda that you may accused because it based on Legal Sources Propaganda is just a fabricated one good day! ({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk))

Per WP:UGC, you can not use Wikipedia as your references as they may be supplied by anyone and probably even you based on you and your master's history here. You havent even provided any single Reliable Source that the Philippines was established before 1521, all you do is twist and imply your own conclusions to support your own agenda. Anyway, will leave it to the admins and the project to decide the proper course of action here.--RioHondo (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Expanding/translating articles from English?

Good day, new user here. I am not sure if this is the proper forum for this question so feel free remove this if necessary. I would like to soon contribute to the local pages but my initial thought would be by translating the articles from the English Wikipedia. Are there any guidelines in doing so? My primary concern would be the reuse of images and (re)citation of sources. For the sources, is it possible to cite the same sources as in the English article? Would the validity of content be questionable if the source and the article (the translated one) are in different languages? Rmdelacruz (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I do pretty much the same thing. Be careful, though; you need to be sensitive to linguistic conceptual differences. :) Sometimes I still have trouble whenever I'm dealing with differences between Standard Taxonomy and Folk Taxa. But anyway, be bold! And have fun! - Alternativity (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Hague rules in favor of the Philippines on the West Philippine Sea

It's time to update our articles concerning this issue of marine entitlement for the Philippines and nullification of the 9-Dash Line/China's historical claim.--RioHondo (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Good luck. I tried my hand at improving the Philippines v. China article last month and found it difficult due to needing to be fully compliant with Wikipedia policies and due to a couple of intransigent pro-China editors. I personally would wait for a few months for the excitement to die down before delving into the article. —seav (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The article is even too big to edit properly now. It has to be split soon. Xeltran (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status of Facebook photos from government pages

Hi. Just want to clarify this issue regarding the photo of Leni Robredo. Someone keeps on uploading this photo, which came from Robredo's Facebook page (source). The uploader (User:RepublicaNegrense) specified that the photo is not subject to copyright since it was made by a government official. But as per my understanding of WP:COPYRIGHT, the said photo is still subject to copyright, since it was uploaded in Facebook. Can someone help me to clarify this? An anon already reverted my edit and reinstated the Facebook photo. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sec 171.1q of the IP Code states that said photo is a "work of the Government of the Philippines" if it "is a work created by an officer or employee of the Philippine Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations as part of his regularly prescribed official duties". So the question is, can the uploader prove that the photographer was acting/getting paid by on behalf of the Phil. gov't? If not then it's better to not use this photo. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It is generally presumed that the Facebook pages of high-ranking Philippine government officials are run by their staffers, who are normally considered government employees. For example, this image of Grace Poe was an image I lifted off of her Facebook page (I was able to confirm though through a friend of mine who works for her that the image was taken by a staffer, and that the page is run by her senatorial staff). Some of the pictures of Leni Robredo from the Facebook page in question even incorporate the Seal of the Vice President of the Philippines, which makes the claim even more credible. Regardless of the medium, they are presumed to be works of the government and as such belong in the public domain. (It is another question though if the image comes from the personal account of the person in question.)

That said, for RepublicaNegrense and others, please upload these images to Commons and not the English Wikipedia. It's been four years since Commons decided that Philippine government works aren't copyrighted and yet it appalls me that people still think Philippine government works can only be used under a claim of fair use. :\ --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, it's the uploader's copyright that will be followed, not by Facebook. By the way, there were a lot of interesting photos at the govph's Flickr account. Unfortunately, all of them are uploaded with the "all rights reserved" tag. Since most of the photos there were from the National Museum, can it still be uploaded in Commons as a work of the Philippine Government? -WayKurat (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sky. Well if it's gov't work then I think it's fair to use the image. I just don't want the Wiki to violate anyone's privacy, even that of politicians. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

To answer WayKurat, yes, those images should be considered PD. Not sure if they are government works, but so long as they were taken prior to 1966 if the author is unknown, they are in the public domain. (Regarding privacy, they are politicians after all.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's make a guide to tambayan decisions on precolonial history issues, shall we?

Guys, what's the process for creating a page that collates tambayan decisions on certain topics into a single policy/decision list? I'm sort of tired of arguing in circles, particularly for pre-colonial history. - Alternativity (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that would actually make policing much easier. Im guessing this could all be mentioned somewhere like at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Task force Philippine History? As i normally dont edit history related articles here, and only act when i see something thats obviously wrong, there has to be a more systematic way to refer editors to those guidelines and consensus for faster resolution and minimal arguments.--RioHondo (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Aren't we retiring and merging that task force into the Tambayan? Hm. My first question is: what kind of policy/discussion page can we put forward? An Essay? And if so, any thoughts of what it should contain?- Alternativity (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Either the Task Force or its own WikiProject Philippine History is all good for me. It doesnt have to be an essay, maybe just a section in the main page for the Guidelines, or in the introduction where all the relevant WP content policies are stated, particularly No original research, Neutral point of view and Verifiability, as well as Do not create hoaxes and Fringe theories. And then we can link all the relevent discussions on those guidelines that we have had here in WT:TAMBAY to its own discussion or talk page for easier access.--RioHondo (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, there's a lot of stuff. While a section in the page space would be good, I feel it would be helpful to have a subpage of it's own where policy can be detailed and examples and specifics given. (I thought that meant an Essay. But is that really just a sub-page?) There's a long discussion about the skewed perspective of documentary primary sources and early secondary, for example. (Spanish sources are pro-Spanish, Chinese sources are pro-Chinese, Catholic publications will be pro-Catholic, explicitly Marxist readings will be Marxist, etc etc.) We really need to come up with some sort of policy for when these sources - presumably all legit - contradict each other.- Alternativity (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is a good place to start regarding conflicting claims, and shall serve as our basis for sticking to mainstream history. I am okay with essays that illustrate specific cases and examples too though.--RioHondo (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Another one of his creations List of wars involving the Philippines included the Igorot Wars, Bruneian War, inter-kingdom, rajahnate and sultanate wars where the Philippines was not even involved, and in fact not even created yet. Moved those items to a new article List of conflicts in the Philippines. We need more reviewers here.--RioHondo (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Pintados page?

I vaguely remember a show called Pintados from my childhood, but I can't, for the life of me remember whether it was from GMA or ABS-CBN. It doesn't seem like there's a page on it, but I think there should since other local shows have their own pages.

Edit: For that matter, can we also have a List of Filipino Superheroes page?210.5.70.76 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

There is already a page for Filipino superheroes, here you go. Also there is a page for the show, Pintados (TV series)--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh there we go. Thanks. I just happened to search 'Pintados' but it didn't come up. Maybe add a link from that page to the TV series page?

Edit: Oh there is one now.210.5.70.76 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Philippine party colors

Isn't it time to update Philippine political party colors? -- Namayan (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yaysmay15

I raised concern about this user, Yaysmay15, because of editing behavior on "XXXX in the Philippines" articles. The user last targeted the 2013 in the Philippines, 2014 in the Philippines, and 2016 in the Philippines, and his edits involved re-adding of removed non-notable events, for the reason of national coverage. I warned him of edit-warring, because he have been re-adding non-notable events in "XXXX in the Philippines" articles once removed, and filed a report on WP:AN3, but he would still don't stop on editing.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There, just filed an RPP request on the said pages. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

On your RFP requests for 2013 in the Philippines, 2014 in the Philippines, and 2016 in the Philippines, you wanted temporary protection, but, it should be temporary semi-protection instead. Please change your requests to have temporary semi-protection instead, so other users can still edit those articles in case my edit-warring report for Yaysmay15 has been resolved.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I only asked for a temporary lockdown for the page. I know it seems too much but since Yaysmay is an extended confirmed user and isn't backing down on his disruptive editing, and that such full protection has been applied to other pages affected by edit disputes before, I felt that it wouldn't hurt to suspend editing for a bit until all parties agree to a reasonable consensus. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus, I'll wait for my edit-warring report against Yaysmay15 to be resolved, and see him blocked for at least a week or a month.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Or you can even even file a case on WP:ANI, if his persistent editing behavior doesn't stop and the Tambayan Philippines community cannot even handle Yaysmay15's editing behavior.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There is that too, but I'll leave that one up to you. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Jrtacbobo.123456's edits

User:Jrtacbobo.123456 recently removed information from the Philippines page under Religion section. He stresses it is "biass and too outdated":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=733388600

He also removed an image of the INC Central temple, which prompted me to check his contributions. It appears he concentrates on changing the percentage figures of Islam/Muslim/Moro people/religion. He stresses that 11% of the Philippines are Muslim/are religiously affiliated with Islam using this source:

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm?year=2014&dlid=238326#wrapper

which states:

"A more recent estimate, made in 2012 by the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF), an office within the Office of the President, indicates that approximately 11 percent of the total population is Muslim."

As stated in the quote above, it is an "estimate" and by the "National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF)" which invites suspicion on its accuracy.

The National Statistics Office on the other hand, in this 2010 Census results file: http://web0.psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2014%20PIF.pdf (under Demographics section) shows 5,127,084 people under Islam, which when calculated for the percentage of the total population at that time (92,097,978) yields 5.57% (far from the 11% "estimate" of the other source).

I would trust the NSO census rather than the NCMF's estimation. It seems Jrtacbobo.123456 uses the same estimation source in other articles relating to Islam:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=706099804

--Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Florin Hilbay

Please help me watch this page. It seems that an anon really wants it deleted --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have requested protection of the page. Placed the article under my watchlist.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! The article is now protected from vandalism --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Irreligion in the Philippines

The Dentsu Communication Institute Inc., Research Centre for Japan said in 2006 that about 11% of the population are Atheist or Agnostic, but this is not reflected in the tables for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines#Religion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_Philippines.

In fact, if you add together the Other, Unspecified and None, it doesn't even reach 5%. Why the large disparity? 116.93.23.41 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Re Dentsu, that 11% figure seems to have come from the 10.9% figure here, which identifies its source as "Dentsu Research Institute, Japan Research Center, ed., "60 countries worldwide values Data Book" (From June 9, 2006, the transition of Christianity Korea September 3, 2014 addition [sic?:edition])" and which was published by Honkawa Data Tribune. I'd be skeptical about this passing muster with WP:RSN. I've seen lots of other, better, sources giving mutually inconsistent figures for religious populations in the Philippines quoted and cited in various WP articles without much regard to either contradictions between articles or WP:DUE within individual articles. Welcome to Wikipedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

So why not outright strike the passage from the page, if the source isn't reliable? 210.5.70.76 (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Cite error in Manila Film Center

Dunno how to fix it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_Film_Center 116.93.23.41 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Fixed it. --Jojit (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Table styles

I've lately been working with table content and supporting cites in some articles and, following on that, I've raised the issue of nonstandard table styles vs. WP:MOS#Appearance on an article talk page here. I have the impression that articles on Philippine-related topics quite often use table styles which I take as having been crafted to have more visual impact than the standard wikitable style, and I'm questioning that here. See also this closed RFC which I read as saying that it is generally appropriate to follow the guidance in the MOS. Comments? Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of Cabinets of the Philippines#Table style. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that there are some somewhat standardized table styling tweak templates documented at Template:Table-experimental. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Unstable article titles of pre-colonial polities

Hi. I hope we can come up with a stable and neutral naming convention for all our historical polities to put an end to all these constant RMs back and forth.

Tondo (historical state) (moved from Tondo Dynasty, Tondo (historical entity), Kingdom of Tondo and originally at Ancient Tondo)
Seludong (moved from Maynila (historical entity) and originally at Kingdom of Maynila)
Namayan (moved from Kingdom of Namayan)
Rajahnate of Butuan (moved from Kingdom of Butuan)
Rajahnate of Cebu
Kedatuan of Madja-as (moved from Confederation of Madja-as)
Luyag na Kaboloan (moved from Huangdom of Pangasinan)

This instability came after some of our editors began to question the use of the Eurocentric term "Kingdom" for our polities despite its common usage in English RS and history books. While I agree that the issue with WP:NEUTRALITY may be valid, I do think we also need to make them recognizable, and more importantly, stable. Therefore I propose that we revisit the definition of Barangay (pre-colonial) and see if we can apply it to all these polities.--RioHondo (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

2nd AfD for Pak Ganern

Heads up, Tambays. Apparently, Pak Ganern was speedy-deleted twice and is now having its second AfD. Do share your views on the issue. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ambica International Corporation

Ambica International Corporation is a pharmaceutical company based in the Philippines. It specializes in the importation, distribution, marketing and selling of branded generic medicines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.129.134 (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

PROTECTION NEEDED - Talk:Risa Hontiveros#Vandalism and hate campaign WikiProject tagging

The article written about the Good Senator Risa Hontiveros is under attack, she is a victim of vandalism and hate campaign and it reflects well in some of the most recent edits, how can we protect the article from such attacks?

The article was littered with such catchphrases as PANOT, daang matuwad and "Yellow Catholicism" which may be funny to some but DEFINITELY not encyclopedic.

Thanks! —-— .:nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

PH presidents infobox

I have a question: is there any rule out there about the names presented in the Philippine presidential infobox? Most of the early presidents have "Sr" there, but I can't recall if they were known for being "Sr", for example, Jose Laurel and Manuel L. Quezon.— JL 09 ^talk_contribs 14:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

RM notification 2 December 2024

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:First Spouse of the Philippines#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

10,000 Challenge

Hi, if anybody would be interested in doing a 10,000 article improvement challenge for the Philippines and Southeast Asia and national contests for Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines etc please comment at my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

About Template:History of the Philippines

Just wondering here , As I observing the history Templates of the Philippines and other Countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, They prefer the word Kingdom to their early history which is the Pre-colonial era on our template, and why they using it since it was a Euro-centric terms?

But Since users here are not prefering to the word "Kingdom" Because it is a "Euro-Centric", I had an idea of what should we call these Matter :

Shall we call these Early States rather than Early Kingdoms , Because of the following , The Philippines before the Spaniards arrived on the Shores Had Many Kingdoms and States, In luzon they had Lakanate of tondo and Huangdoms (The Mai and Luyag na kaboloan/Pangasinan) and the Cheifdom of the Igorot Society , In Visayas their are the Kedatuan or Kadatuan of Madja-as and the Rajahnate of Cebu and in Mindanao their are another Rajanate of Butban (butuan) and the three sultanates of Maguindanao, Sulu and Lanao And other Cheifdoms in remote islands In Short, they are Divided.

So Why dont we Consider the word States for a Reason :

State term is Generic None Euro-centric and more neutral term like the word king Which another equivalent of those titles i mentioned,

The State term is a neutral way of viewing them, Not glorifying the Ancient history and the Same time also not glorified or Viewed the History form the Eye of Colonizers.

This is just an Suggestion / Proposed terms for the well and proper way of terms in the timelines.

So Any Suggestions or Comments and here from you guys what do you think ? Thank you! (JournalmanManila (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

If you are referring to the historical period between 900 and 1521, the common reference to it is pre-colonial period since it discusses the period right before 1521, the age of colonization. And that is why we have articles here such as Religion in pre-colonial Philippines, Warfare in pre-colonial Philippines, Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines, etc. The historical periods are clearly divided on the basis of conquest and rule, with 1521, 1898, 1946 identified as turning points. That's the standard and mainstream narrative on Ph history. Now if you are referring to the ancient polities, we have a term for it: ancient barangay which includes all individual lakanates, kedatuans, rajahnates, etc.--RioHondo (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither "kingdom" nor "state" are really accurate, imo. "City-state" is close, but still not quite the same. Using "barangay" can add confusion as well, since the modern definition is markedly different from the pre-colonial term. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- The two articles (Seludong AKA Maynila and Namayan) which are characterized as Kingdom in the redirect pages linked by the template use the term polity in their lead sections. Why not omit the re-characterization and say Seludong (Maynila) and Namayan?
- Tondo (historical state), linked in the template's Prehistory (pre-900) section is linked in the template via the Kingdom of Tondo redirect page. I see that that article explains that Tondo was originally an Indianized kingdom in the 10th century, so perhaps the characterization as Kingdom is appropriate.
- Should this discussion be taking place at Template talk:History of the Philippines? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

- You see, all of you guys did not like the word kingdom , but you prefered "Polity" which is an English term for a small underdeveloped communities , There are Many Indianized states which can be considered as a nation And they are Called "Mandala's" . (a term used for a Indianized or Hindu-Buddhist Kingdoms and/or a Nation) , Not just a Polity so i prefer states. (JournalmanManila (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC))
  - While I don't really have a preference, "polity" does not mean "small underdeveloped communities." A state is a polity with certain characteristics (territory, government, partial or full sovereignty, etc.), but not all polities are states. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Marcos edits added by anon user and User:Thetruth16

Hi. Just want to inform you guys that an anonymous IP editor 180.190.114.163 (later created his own user account User:Thetruth16) has been editing articles involving Ferdinand Marcos and Benigno Aquino Jr. and from the looks of his edits, he is tilting the neutrality of the articles to favor Marcos and vilify Ninoy Aquino. I tried to revert all of his revisions but he reverted it back because according to him I have a "negative bias" against the Marcoses. Can someone please check this out for me? Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There will always 2 sides to a coin, just like the issue of the Philippine–American War where many US-based editors have been complaining of its anti-American bias. WP:DUE is always a good place to start in resolving these disputes. When all sides are represented, we as readers are able to make our own conclusion instead of the article deliberately providing it for us. Thats just my 2 cents tho.--RioHondo (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well Thetruth16 is using self published sources as references to his edits. (This, this and this) All of these sources are also used by Pro-Marcos Facebook pages, which is why I am very weary of his edits. The same method on how the Pro-Marcos FB pages sites their sources ("If it's Pro-Marcos and Anti-Aquino, use them" mentality) is very visible on the edits of this user. -WayKurat (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@WayKurat:

The contributions made point to reliable sources (Rappler, Businessmirror, government agencies, foreign press). Why don't you put both sides of the argument on the wikipedia artile and let the readers decide? You can place counter-rebuttals or alternative views right after the contributions I made, but then it has to be sourced properly rather than just biased opinions. You don't want articles to be one-sided. Also, Ninoy's father pic showing he was arrested by the Americans for collaborating with the Japanese is undeniable, why do you want to hide it as a fact? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benigno_Aquino_Jr.#/media/File:Philippine_puppet_government_officials_in_Japan_1945.jpg

Also, do you think that Ninoy's association with the NPAs as pointed out by Rappler is just an unreliable heresay? http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/36660-ninoy-aquino-communist-links

Parts of my contribution pertaining to sources you consider unreliable such as https://thewalkingencyclopedia.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/who-really-won-in-the-1986-philippine-snap-elections/ have been deleted - happy?

But please, don't just delete properly-sourced contributions that differ from your viewpoint. Thank you. User:Thetruth16 (talk)

Rappler's "MovePH" section, which you used as a citation, is a user-/reader-generated section. Meaning, it does not pass the same stringent editorial process that Rappler would normally give their regular staff. (It even says so in MovePH's masthead: "Move.PH is Rappler’s citizen journalism arm.") It's like you cited a user-contributed "Bayan Mo, Ipatrol Video" (from ABS-CBN) that has not yet been authenticated and checked by ABS-CBN's staffers. It can be regarded as a self-published material. In that regard, citing a MovePH article would be no diffent from citing a fly-by-night Wordpress or Blogger blogpost. --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Titopao:

@RioHondo:

@WayKurat:

Hello all. Thank you for your feedback. Regarding using MovePH, there are equally reliable alternative sources that can be used to back my contribution such as http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included and even scholarly publications http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Case-Studies-Claudio.pdf. Also, this article can be used as an alternate source: http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/

Anyway, the current article on Ferdinand Marcos, tells only one side of the history. I have attempted to bring some balance in the article but my contributions were removed by contributors who are apparently not open to other views, even if they are supported by reputable sources. Instead of raising counterarguments to rebut the points I made, my entire contribution was deleted and I was name called.

Admittedly, some of the sources I initially cited aren't the most reliable, which was used as a justification to remove my entire contribution. However, after removing the unreliable sources, and portions of my contribution attributable to these, you'll see that the rest (and majority) of my contribution is backed by reputable local and international media sources, like Business Mirror, Manila Standard, Philippine Star, Rapper, NBC News and New York Times, as well as other articles within Wikipedia like Philippine constitutional plebiscite, 1973 that were contributed by others.

The producer of this video, which shows the NPA led by Corpuz raiding the PMA armory prior to Martial Law, is actually GMA News: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNlJoXfAH3c. Any suggestions on how this can be used as a proper source? The credentials of the production team is actually at the end of the video. — Preceding unsigned

Regarding the issue on neutrality, you can see that the opening of my contribution is "Marcos' supporters argue", which is actually aligned with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View WP:DUE specifically section 2.3 Due and Undue Weight.

Anyway, I'm proposing that the following be added to the article just so it won't present a too one-sided view of the history. I'd be happy to see any point-by-point rebuttals rather than just name-calling me and branding me as biased just because the facts I presented is different from the view of some contributors here.

Proposal at Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#Marcos' accomplishments and other facts

Hi. Your edits were reverted because they contained references to unreliable sources which fall under WP:UGC as already pointed out. YouTube, WikiPilipinas, Wordpress, Hoppler?, they all fail WP:RS. Problem here too is there were so many new info added with these sources all spread out that reverting it to the last stable version became necessary. The page protection was to prevent the article from turning into an edit warzone and allow you and the other editors to discuss the changes you want to introduce. It will be helpful to point out what exactly needs changing, the specific paragraph or section in the article's talk page where we can also discuss the reliability of your sources.--RioHondo (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo: Hello. Have you seen the revised contribution above and the sources below? No more Wikipilipinas, Wordpress and Hoppler. This point has been addressed already. I've cleaned up my contribution and all remaining are legit sources (Business Mirror, Manila Times, Books, etc.) per WP:RS. This is exactly what I'd like to introduce in the article Ferdinand Marcos and I have mentioned the specific relevant sections (e.g., on his death, on martial law). I have indexed them now with letters/numbers for easy reference. Next step, I guess is to assess each of these using Wikipedia's criteria on WP:RS and WP:DUE without individual political biases. The sections of my contribution that have passed these criteria can then be introduced to the article Ferdinand Marcos. Thank you. Thetruth16 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have posted the same proposal at the article's talk page which is the right venue to discuss all of these. We can continue our discussion there along with other editors who might be interested to review your proposed changes. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I admire the work of Thetruth16, but I also stand for our co-editors here. If you really seek to balance the Marcos narrative, then you should consider what we have to say here. Believe me, I may well claim to be the first to balance the Marcos story, academically speaking. I ised all available sources (anti, pro, or in between). The article still did not come out as I liked it, and my defense to use other sources (I.e. not anti-Marcos) was in vain. Whenever I see more editors seeking almost the same (balancing, not glorifying), I begin to feel vindicated. Anyway, what we need is cooperation and consensus. Marcos is indeed a controversial person, but I also want to be fair to the person as much as we want others to be fair to us. In another discussion, it is proposed to prepare a policy on how pre-colonial history articles are to be treated. Perhaps we can extend it to all history articles under our project, so we can refer to that policy whenever an issue like this surfaces. Issues like this are becoming perennial, and it is not helping if we keep being stuck. Arius1998 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Arius1998 Thanks. Would you great if you could join the discussion here and provide additional feedback. Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#Marcos' accomplishments and other facts. Thetruth16 (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Basilan land areas

Input is needed at Talk: Basilan#Area. I am proposing to significantly change the land area values for the LGU's of Basilan. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

^ The Laguna Copperplate Inscription. Accessed September 04, 2008.

[bibingka-1] The Laguna Copperplate Inscription. Accessed September 04, 2008.

[1]