Talk:Balangiga, Eastern Samar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A very lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Naming_of_places is still underway about revisions to WP:MOSPHIL. When that discussion has reached a conclusion, it may become clearer whether WP:MOSPHIL has consensus support. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)



Balangiga, Eastern SamarBalangiga – Per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Disambiguation not needed as Balangiga redirects here. – RioHondo (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:UNDAB. And WP:IAR the WP:MOSPHIL accordingly. --B2C 17:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Added second statement about IAR. --B2C 01:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would vote for Support, but because Balangiga falls under the "jurisdiction" of the WP:MOSPHIL naming guidelines, the proposed move would go against the stated guidelines and as such there is a strong reason for the move to fail. That said, there is an ongoing discussion at the WT:TAMBAY talk page regarding the naming guidelines and I exhort people to participate in that discussion. —seav (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment shouldn't it be a disambiguation page instead (or just redirect to Balangiga Massacre first) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    • We can probably create a Balangiga (disambiguation) page for the other related articles on the massacre and the Balangiga bells, but as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the town gets the plain title. --RioHondo (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
      • The Marathon precedent tells us otherwise. The town isn't automatically the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC all of the time. In this case, when someone talks about Balangiga, it's always either about the massacre(s) or the bells. –HTD 11:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Per B2C's link above, I'd like to see if an interpretation of the WP:AT policy can trump local guidelines. —seav (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Disambiguify Balangiga, keep the article here as per WP:MOSPHIL. –HTD 09:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a bad-faith move discussion while the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Naming of places is underway. This move discussion should be put on hold. -- P 1 9 9   15:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • How is this a bad-faith move request? RioHondo thinks in good faith that this move would make Wikipedia better. You do have the point that putting this discussion on hold might be better, but accusations of bad-faith is too much. Please read WP:AGF. —seav (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
      • RioHondo has been involved in the central discussion, so he well aware that we're trying to reach consensus there. To work behind the scenes of this central discussion is counterproductive (to say it mildly). To give him the benefit of the doubt, I have striked it out. -- P 1 9 9   21:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
        • P199, AFAIK, this is no different than Samar and Leyte which i initiated and which ended with a clear consensus to move the provinces despite going against the WP Mosphil guidelines on provinces taking precedence over islands. With a little bit of common sense and WP:BOLD decisions, we have successfully WP:IAR the Mosphil and corrected this flaw. :) --RioHondo (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Another precedent for moves against local conventions (more relevant than the Elizabeth II example) are page moves for Australian places a few years ago. In early 2010, the Australian place-name convention stated:

All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and preferentially made City. The unqualified Town should be either a redirect or disambig page. Local government areas are at their official name.

Despite that, page moves like Ballarat and Coffs Harbour were successfully moved due to reasoning per the WP:AT policy. —seav (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - other items with that name exist. Androoox (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Please elaborate on your statement. As your argument stands, it's extremely useless. Lots of items are named "Paris", but that doesn't mean that the capital of France cannot get the article title "Paris". That's why we have a whole page called WP:DAB. —seav (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The massacre and the bells pertain to the town's history and as such, no need for disambiguation as all three articles are related. No other "Balangiga"'s exist. --RioHondo (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The town? So, the article says the topic is about a "municipality". What about the locality inside the municipality? What about the Balangiga River? Androoox (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
      • In the Philippines, municipalities are also referred to as towns. Both terms are considered synonymous. Examples: [1][2]. As for the locality, municipalities in the Philippines are divided into barangays. And there is no barangay in Balangiga named "Balangiga". As for the river, I checked reliable sources for it a few days ago and my conclusion is that it is not notable since I did not find any articles that talk about it at any length apart from mentioning it as part of the geography of the town, and there is very few material with which to create a non-stub article.

        Now, it seems that you are quite fond of looking things up at the GEOnet Names Server. However, based on my experience with it while contributing to the OpenStreetMap project, that the entries there, especially outside the United States, can be quite incorrect. Sometimes the location is wrong. At other times, entries exist that do not correspond to actual entities on the ground. For example, they have an ADM2 entry for the municipality of Sanchez-Mira, but the coordinates point to the middle of the Sulu Sea a thousand kilometers away. —seav (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC[edit]

There are many articles that make use of the term "Balangiga". There's the town of Balangiga, the Balangiga massacre which took place in the town, and the Balangiga bells, which came from the town's church as war booty following the aftermath of the Balangiga massacre. Now the question is is there a primary topic for the term "Balangiga"? —seav (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia history:

  • The first Balangiga article (April 2004) was about the town, though it's one line and the rest of the article talked about the massacre.
  • On the same day, Balangiga was moved to Balangiga massacre since most of the content talked about the event.
  • On the same day, Balangiga, now a redirect, was modified to a stub article about the town.
  • Some time later (the page history doesn't seem to indicate it): the town article was moved to Balangiga, Eastern Samar per WP:MOSPHIL.

I dunno who wrote this, but article history has little bearing on what should be the primary topic. A quick Google search discounting "Wikipedia", "Haiyan" and "Yolanda" has most of the hits either about the massacre, bells or the latest election results (which would then be about the town per se). –HTD 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I started this section so that there is a discussion on what the primary topic for the term "Balangiga" is. I guess one simple question is, do reliable sources use the single term "Balangiga" to refer to each of the 3 topics? For the town, undeniably yes. For the bells and the event, that we need to find out. —seav (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked through Google Books for {balangiga -wikipedia} (Google News has too few results) and of the first 10 pages or results, there's only 1 source that refers to the event as simply "Balangiga". All the rest of the books use "Balangiga" to refer to the town. They use a different term like "Balangiga massacre", "Balangiga incident", or "Balangiga bells" to refer to the other 2 topics. —seav (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick question: If you hear/read the word Balangiga, what first comes into your mind?
The issue here is not if the Balangiga the town is referred simply as "Balangiga"; the article already does that, or if other Balangigas are referred by some other name. The issue is if the word "Balangiga" by itself, always refers to the town, or something else. On answering the quick question above, let's use the probably the same Google Books search you used. On the first page of hits, 7 talk about the massacre, 2 about the bells, zero about the town per se, and perhaps all 9 talk about the bells and the massacre. –HTD 15:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You said, "the issue is if the word 'Balangiga' by itself, always refers to the town, or something else." In your first page of hits, was the word 'Balangiga' used by itself or as part of a noun phrase like "Balangiga massacre", "Balangiga incident", or "Balangiga bells"? The term "Balangiga" in such phrases like "massacre at Balangiga" or "bells of Balangiga" is clearly a reference to the town. —seav (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
In the first page of hits, if the hits were truly talking about the town, the topics should be who were the mayors there, the population, economy, etc. But no, all of the hits talk about either the massacres or the bells, or both. The town? Nada. The fact that it happened in "Balangiga" is an afterthought. It could've happened somewhere else. –HTD 04:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The primary consideration when considering WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the term itself: "Balangiga". "Balangiga" by itself is not frequently used to refer to the bells or the incident, which are usually referred to by their noun phrases. To give a similar example, the Leaning Tower of Pisa is more famous than the city of Pisa (on Wikipedia, the tower article gets 2 to 3 times the page views compared to the city article), yet the articles are where they are. Another example: what do you think of when "Pearl Harbor" is mentioned? Maybe to your surprise, the place is at Pearl Harbor while the event is at Attack on Pearl Harbor. This is despite the attack article receiving almost 4 times the page views as the place article. Google Books results unsurprisingly show a that the attack is the majority subject, not the place. —seav (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
""Balangiga" by itself is not frequently used to refer to the bells or the incident" It is. "Remember Balangiga", "When Balagiga happened". Think of it as the noun "Google" which now means "search". Like my example above, when you read/hear the word "Balangiga" by itself, with no context, what do you remember? For me it's either the massacre or the bells. The town is a far third... perhaps if a typhoon as nasty as Yolanda landfalls there, things should change, but not now. This is unlike the Leaning Tower of Pisa which is always that, the Leaning Tower of Pisa. –HTD 14:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You claim that "Balangiga" by itself is frequently referred to by just "Balangiga". But as I said above, I don't see that in the first 10 results pages of Google Books. I see the following: "Bells of Balangiga", "Balangiga bells", "bells from the Balangiga church", "Balangiga conflict", "Balangiga incident", "Balangiga massacre", "episode at Balangiga", and "masakra w Balangiga" (Polish?). Among the results, I only see a few that fits: (a) "Nationalist groups in the Philippines have come to place Balangiga within the pantheon of the countrywide populist uprising under Aguinaldo", (b) "American soldiers: Balangiga" (2 instances), and (c) "In retrospect, Balangiga had been the last effective blow rather than the start of a new campaign". 3 instances in 10 pages of results is not frequent. —seav (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone who understands Mandarin or Cantonese take a look at the Hong Kong/Chinese WP on the article Manila and see if it has been replaced by the Manila hostage crisis as primarytopic? Lol jk. I don't buy these events or landmarks replacing the places they are associated with. Not for Manila, not for Pisa, not for Balangiga, not even for Tiananmen Square. :) --RioHondo (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Marathon? Even Waterloo and Gettysburg are dab pages. I realize the Gettysburg example is a bad one, but what should be the "most famous" Gettysburg is buried down in the dab page.
Also, for the record, just to note how hilariously bad this straw man was, Balangiga is primarily, solely even, known for what happened during the Philippine-American War: the massacres and the bells. The Chinese (or Hong Kongers?) know Manila as a city, not as a time where a cop killed their tourists on a bus. Places such as Manila and Beijing have way too many things that happened that many people knew about which prevents a single event to be associated with it. Even in places such as Munich and Dallas, though known to be places where the Black September incident and Kennedy assassination happened, people still separate the thoughts of the cities per se and the events that happened. In this example, as exemplified by the Google Books search, when people think of "Balangiga", they think of either the massacre or bells; same with Marathon, which, when people think about it, isn't about the town in Greece, but a race. –HTD 14:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the Manila example was done in jest. But I think marathon is not a good example because people will be surprised that Marathon is a place, unlike with Balangiga. People who know about the Balangiga massacre would know that the incident was named after a place, unlike people who participate in marathons and fun runs. Waterloo and Gettysburg are more comparable with Balangiga. —seav (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Shown below is a list of topic pairs like Balangiga and Balangiga massacre where a place and an object/event at the place (containing the place name in its name) are at separate articles and (1) the place is located at the base name (or redirected from there) while (2) the object/event is somewhere else even if the object/event is more popular or famous than the place, and (3) the DAB page is not at the base name.

seav (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.