Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

 

 

This is the discussion page of Tambayan Philippines, where Filipino contributors and contributors to Philippine-related articles discuss general matters regarding the development of Philippine-related articles as well as broad topics on the Philippines with respect to Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. Likewise, this talk page also serves as the regional notice board for Wikipedia concerns regarding the Philippines, enabling other contributors to request input from Filipino Wikipedians.

	Wikimedia Philippines

Wikipedia Meetups in the Philippines
Previous Starbucks Drive-Thru, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City August 27, 2011	Upcoming GeiserMaclang Marketing Communications 6F Cambridge Center Bldg. Tordesillas cor. Gallardo Streets Makati City November 26, 2011

Conservatism in the Philippines

There is an article Liberalism in the Philippines, but there is no Conservatism in the Philippines article. Why? Does this not highlight the alleged bias that exist on Wikipedia? Would anyone be willing to work with me on creating an article under Conservatism in the Philippines that meets NPOV & RS? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberalism in the Philippines continues to exist while conservatism died out with the Spanish Empire. The conservative party in the Philippines was part of the Liberal-Conservative Party (Spain). TFD (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. Actually, a lot of political parties in the Philippines are quite conservative in ideology, although they're not called the "Conservative Party" per se: Lakas-Kampi-CMD for example is one of these parties. If I were to consider even the historical political makeup of the Philippines, it can be argued that the Nacionalista Party acted as the Philippines' conservative party until 1972, and it still sticks to that ideology today even with accusations that the Philippines' political parties are devoid of ideology. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to describe them as center-right or right-wing, they have no connection with historical conservatism, but have historic connections with nationalism, liberalism and Christian democracy. TFD (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You can actually say that virtually all political parties in the Philippines, save for the left-wingers and the communists, are conservative, or promote conservative values. Even though they may not be connected to historical conservatism movements, as long as they promote conservatism, they're conservative.

That article on liberalism should've been redirected to Liberal Party as liberalism as it is defined is confined into a handful of people... for example the Liberal Party right after the war, actually wanted to let the American bases stay (and it did, that's why Manuel Roxas won); the party would make a 360-degree turn in the 1990s when Jovito Salonga was one of those who pushed for the closing of the bases (and it did, which caused a long decline of the LP until you guessed it, Mar Roxas was appointed DTI secretary). –HTD 15:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the decline of the LP was reversed when the President was elected? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It started when Mar Roxas became DTI secretary. When that happened, someone from the LP was thrust into the national spotlight and they started winning seats at the Senate; check out the election results section of the LP article -- starting in 2001 they started to become relevant again. Noynoy's election is the culmination of the comeback. It's up for the next LP leaders if they can sustain this. –HTD 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I think Ate Pinay and Alternativity might be good collaborators for this article. I don't know if Ate is still active but Alternativity is quite knowledgeable in Filipino culture. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all original research unless you can show that the topic exists. It would just be us deciding to group some liberals, nationalists and Christian democrats together with Spanish imperialists and calling it conservatism. TFD (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is true. I've not encountered writings about "conservatism in the Philippines." Or even liberalism. I've written some politics articles and the few times I saw the word "conservative" was to describe the policies of the Progresista Party and how the Osmena wing of the Nacionalista Party was described during the 1947 election... –HTD 02:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a Filipino American who is interested in the politics of the Philippines, I find it difficult to look at the political landscape of the country given the shifting, creation, and disbanding of political parties and coalitions; that is there isn't the stability in parties that there appears to be with the two big tent parties in the United States; articles about Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism would be helpful in growing my understanding. From my searches there are significant indepth reliable sources about Communism in the Philippines, more so than any political school of thought regarding the Philippines. The article List of political parties in the Philippines appears to be a good start; as for conservatism in the Philippines, there appears to be much written about it's connection to the Catholic Church in the Philippines. All this being said, I think the hardest part of such an article would be writing it in a way that meets WP:NEU and finding sufficient reliable source references to move it beyond stub into C or B class. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

When talking about political parties in the Philippines, it's not about what they say they are, but what they do when they're in power. For example, in the 3rd Congress of the Philippines, the Nacionalistas were labeled as "progressive" and export-oriented while the Liberals were the opposite. Then, Ramon Magsaysay died, Carlos P. Garcia won and the Nacionalistas remianed in power but the Nacionalistas reversed their position... and guess what? The Liberals also reversed theirs. To complete the cycle, in the next election, it was Diosdado Macapagal, the Liberal Party candidate, ran in a progressive and export-oriented platform. In a classic move in Filipino politics, while the Liberals did not win the 1961 House elections, 24 Nacionalistas crossed the floor and became modified their positions to suit what Macapagal wanted. –HTD 04:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that the concepts of what constitutes as liberal and conservative differs vastly by country. The current deep divide between the two in U.S. politics applies to U.S. politics only and would not apply to the Philippines. Most of the active parties in the Philippines would be more or less centrist if U.S. definitions are used, no matter if they explicitly call themselves "Liberal" or "Conservative".-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If U.S. definitions will be used, almost all local parties saved for exceptions I stated earlier are conservative. The U.S. is actually pretty conservative, especially if you'd compare them with European parties. –HTD 11:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Understatement of the year. I think you and RightCowLeftCoast are making the mistake of defining liberalism through the context of American conservatism, i.e. basically making it synonymous with communism and socialism (which themselves are also usually considered synonymous by most American conservatives). A definition that is peculiarly American. If that were the case, almost all countries would be conservative and China, NK, Cuba, Iraq, etc. would be liberal. Doesn't quite fit, right? Take a look at Conservatism in the United States. How are those even remotely similar to anything in Philippine politics? Here, the communist party is outlawed, most politicians vehemently oppose revising the constitution, divorce and abortion are illegal, and Christianity still has a huge influence on government policies; but no one batted an eyelash when we had women presidents, we're pretty xenophilic, homosexuals can openly serve in the military, and we have Islamic national holidays. An American would conclude we were conservatives based on the former and liberals on the latter. So which are we really?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I realized I'm giving the local political parties way too much credit. The local political parties are actually pragmatists, they'd give in to what is the easiest way out. See for example, they've avoided contentious social issues (examples are the RH bill and the like). It's just that the conservative values are adopted since conservative forces (the Catholic Church) are good lobbyists, and they'd rather go with the status quo than create social disruption (in short, only a few have political will).

If you're reading the worldwide political spectrum, American politics is actually to the right. The abortion laws in the U.S. did not actually start at the legislature -- it was a result of the SCOTUS' decision Roe v. Wade, Communist parties in Europe are not outlawed. Women in politics is not liberal or conservative anymore, Sarah Palin was the running mate of John McCain of the Republican Party, the more conservative of the two parties. –HTD 15:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the point. It's very subjective. What gets defined conservative or liberal varies enormously by country. An Afghani or Iranian conservative for instance would hardly bear any resemblance to an American conservative - yet the Taliban are actually VERY conservative. It also varies even within a country. The issues that mattered to an American anti-abolitionist conservative in the US civil war (which were the Southern Democrats back then) aren't the same issues that mattered to a 1950's McCarthyist conservative or a 21st century small-government and fiscal conservative.

Philippine politics is mostly centrist in that it doesn't lean one way or the other, it just goes with whoever yells the loudest. Furthermore, the issues mentioned above hardly enters our own political "battlegrounds", with the possible exception of the Cold War. That article Liberalism in the Philippines is misleading. At its current state, it's mostly talking only about the Liberal Party of the Philippines, not the general ideology of liberalism. It should be either redirected or reverted to the original revision. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think having no position is defined as "centrist". By default, probably a plurality (in House+Senate) should be conservative, then most of the rest goes to the highest bidder (default to conservative), then the few are either liberals (or centrists) or to the left of that -- just look at the RH bill debate. Both conservatism and communism in the Philippines should probably be easy to create, as for liberalism it's quite hard since as you said, "liberalism" can mean many different things -- it's quite easier to define conservatism and communism than liberalism, and what the Liberal Party has supported both in the past, present and future, isn't exactly "liberalism." –HTD 19:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

True enough, though the conservatism exhibited by default is specifically social conservatism. The main opposition for the RH Bill, after all, is the Roman Catholic church.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The problem here is that local political "parties" have *no* real ideology. It isn't about the issues. It's about the people. Kinda stupid if you ask me but hey, that's how it "works" over here. Shrumster (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, the present article than should be proposed to be merged into the article Liberal Party (Philippines), and a new article be created in its place regarding Liberalism in the Philippines, as well as similar articles about Conservatism, Libertarianism, & Communism. As this is about politics in the Philippines, liberalism as stated in the article Liberalism in the United States, and conservatism as stated in the article Conservatism in the United States would actually have no bearing on what the two terms means in the context of Philippine politics.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth creating an article on Liberalism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism in the Philippines, honestly. It's just not that big of a deal here. I don't even think the politicians themselves distinguish between them. Communism though has enough material to have an article on. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps then the focus should be first on the article Politics of the Philippines and give the Political parties and elections section more context as it appears to be mired in recentism; this way those who are looking to learn about politics in the Philippines can have a well referenced source of information. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Conducting a search, it appears that there has not been significant research by scholarly sources on the evolution of the Philippine political culture. Perhaps I am searching for the wrong terms. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It all boils down to definitions. In fact I have heard quite a few analysts argue that the Liberal Party's policies are, in fact, "conservative" by most western definitions of the term. I would thus argue against a "Liberalism in the Philippines" article, except that there are, in fact, entities that claim to be liberal. As for "Conservativism in the Philippines", I must admit I have noted quite an increase in the use of the term since 2008, when all eyes were on the US elections and their repercussions for the 2010 campaign in the Philippines. (I hear the term bandied about mostly by my friends who support the Bagumbayan tandem, by the way.) My own take on the matter is this: conservativism and liberalism are ideologies, not parties, and I do not believe the articles on liberalism and conservativism ought to be so closely linked to the political parties that espouse them. I think these articles ought to reflect the growth of these two ideologies in the body politic, not necessarily the undulations of the political careers of the parties that espouse them. Politicians, I believe, do not an ideology make. There is much to be said about Philippine Conservativism and Philippine Liberalism aside from what can be said about the parties, and that includes the matter of what exactly those two ideologies mean in the Philippine context. "Christian Democracy in the Philippines," at least, is well defined (if not necessarily well represented)! Meanwhile, let me also express a desire to see a separate "Left-Libertarianism in the Philippines" article. Not that I expect one to be made, because I have never heard anyone but me ever espouse it. Haha. :D (Er, User:Lenticel, having said all that, I'm afraid my focus really is pre-colonial Philippines. I'm sorta out of my weight class in contemporary Philippine politics. Heck, I'm barely holding my own in precolonial Philippines. :b :D) - Alternativity (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, you're better than you think Alternativity. Besides, we've worked with articles that are way beyond pre-colonial Philippines. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can try researching on Philippine elections on Google Books and Scholar. There's some dirt on election campaigns, promises, and what policies were actually enacted. Interestingly there's more stuff on the Third Republic than the Marcos era up to the present, or maybe i'm not that interested on those. –HTD 13:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, John Nery and Manolo Quezon of the Inquirer have written a bit on the history of Philippine Conservativism and Liberalism, and Michael Tan occasionally speaks of Libertarianism. (Sorry, I'm more familiar with the Inquirer and the Star, and haven't yet read a star columnist separate ideology from party quite the same way Nery and Quezon do.) Although I'm not necessarily comfortable about using their columns as references for an article on political views (which wouldn't only be opinion, but opinion about opinion), it might be a usable takeoff point for further research. - Alternativity (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha! As it turns out, Ambeth Ocampo was just talking about Conservatives (vs Antonio Luna's Radical Faction) at the Malolos Congress. :D Hmm. - Alternativity (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Butch Dalisay has a rather short article on liberalism in the country in the local version of Esquire, with the explicit statement that "most members of the LP are not liberals". –HTD 16:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a link to that article that you can share with us? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno if Esquire publishes their articles online but it's on the issue with MVP as the cover boy. It's rather short (aside from the main article) -- it shows the history of how liberal causes had fared in the country, such as the separation of church and state, institutionalization and removal of divorce and the death penalty, and the like. –HTD 09:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘After looking around online, I am having difficulty in finding reliable published sources about Conservatism in the Philippines, or where that is the focus. The conversation here has been great, but per WP:VER & WP:BURDEN without those resources any discussion (even ones I start) appear to be moot. I guess I will change my temporary focus to the Catholic Church in the Philippines during World War II. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD for Luce–Celler Act of 1946

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luce–Celler Act of 1946. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC) --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Protect request: List of Presidents of the Philippines

I know this won't fly at WP:RFPP but there's long-term abuse by IPs here which vandalize, then revert after a few minutes, then does it again the next day. –HTD 14:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PP says that temporary semi-protection is indicated in cases of vandalism by IP-hopping anons. I've semi-protected it with an expiry date of 21 February 2012. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons and the (former?) {{PD-PhilippinesGov}}

It seems that Commons has reversed course on Section 176 of the Intellectual Property Code and has agreed that works of the Philippine government have no copyright, per this discussion. Looks like we may be able to upload government works to Commons again! :D --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it. We could test this by transferring several LGU seals to Commons and removing the fair use rationales on enwiki. --seav (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've created an expounded template on that in English and Tagalog.-- Namayan (talk) 12:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between the two templates. PD-Philippines is for works whose copyright term expired, while PD-PhilippinesGov is for works exempted from copyright. Government works should not be covered under the first template. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should those provisions be removed, when one template could have simplified and represent our copyright laws in the first place? That's what Vicente Amador, an IP and copyrights law expert had explained. -- Namayan (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Because works of the Philippine government don't have their copyrights expire, which is the intent of the former template. That's why there's a separate template for works which are exempt from copyright, which in this case falls under PD-PhilippinesGov. There's also a separate template for public documents which are also exempt from copyright: PD-PhilippinesPubDoc. The page history of the PD-Philippines template might better explain things: see Zach's (Zscout370) explanation. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the header to encompass government works. It will be better to have a "one template fits all" copy right licensing.-- Namayan (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't when there are two separate categories for PD works in the Philippines on Commons (as they themselves have categorized): PD Philippines (for expired works) and PD-Philippines-exempt, which necessitate the use of two (or in this case three) templates. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there'd be any restrictions on why we can't unify it. It's really convenient to use 1 template. Talk about being "user-friendly".-- Namayan (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well... yay? :D -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also does this mean works by Philippine Government employees done on government time and pay now have PD status like US federal works? Because that would be awesome. Or is it restricted only to the "official" government stuff like seals and money, etc.?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The law seems to imply all works made in an official capacity, similar to the U.S. case. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Great then! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's our test case: President Aquino's second SONA. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a high-res logo of the General Trias, Cavite seal that I got from a friend of mine who happened to work at the town hall. The logo looks 'swell enough for inclusion, but imo someone should shoop a vector version of it along with several other seals and government images. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Our laws on copyright and intellectual property closely follows US jurisprudence. In an annotation by Vicente Amador on our Copyright law, he cited the Jack Pfeiffer vs CIA. Let it be clear it does not diminish the right of the state to withhold to reserve rights when it will be used for profit. -- Namayan (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please Watch This Page

Hi Folks. I'm asking for your help again re: Rajah Lakan Dula. Of late it has been the victim of a fringe theory that would see him renamed Lakan Banaw Dula, instead of Banaw Lacandula as recorded by the Legazpi expedition. If you look at Talk:Rajah Lakan Dula, you'll see that this seems to have been done by persons claiming to be his descendants, seemingly motivated by a desire to dissociate themselves from certain modern personalities who are also claiming descent. I do not doubt their claims of descent, nor even doubt that they mean well, wishing only to portray what they think is correct. But they prefer to cite family history as a basis for edits and apparently display antagonism towards anyone who disagrees with them. As I've mentioned before, I've been the subject of a personal attack on the talk page, and I've noted, elsewhere on the internet. Oh well. Anyway, I've done a lot of work on the page tonight, and I'm not quite done yet, but I really need your help:

• Please watch the Rajah Lakan Dula article for edits without citations, or with non-reliable citations.
• If an admin could please finally move the article to Lakandula or Lakan Dula (whichever results in more Google Hits is fine by me)
• Could someone please remove the extraneous discussion on the talk page? A warning has already been issued on the talk page, about turning the page into a forum.. to no avail. I'd rather not have to be the one to do the deleting/archiving there, since I'm mentioned there by username as supposedly having vandalized/"diluted" the article.

Hm. Yup, that seems to be it. Thank you very much for your time. -- Alternativity (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, count me in :) I'll read everything first, then see what I can do. --- Tito Pao (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks! Sigh, I'm being accused on the talk page AGAIN of being a Macapagal-paid "hacker". (This is as of mid-day today.) Since my political leanings turn the opposite way, I find myself multiple levels of incensed. :S What CAN be done about personal attacks on talk pages, anyway? - Alternativity (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when did reference.com become a reliable source?--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, right? And that's one of the minor problems this page had before the major overhaul that was done yesterday. Right now, I'm more pissed about the wildness of the discussion on the talk page - discussion "The Lakandula Curse on Gloria Arroyo", for crying out loud - than the main page, but the main page could still use some work. Hm. :S Hopefully soon after this I can get back to doing research on Precolonial Bay and Lumban. - Alternativity (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap. I took a look at the talk page of that article and my head exploded. Shrumster (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that SHOULDN'T be there, but since I'm specifically named, I don't want to be the one to do something about it. I was hoping an admin might do something about it. :S Hm. I just realized, the accusation against me is Libelous! :S - Alternativity (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

NARA images

Thanks to the University of Wisconsin there are multiple public domain images. You can find theme here. Enjoy! --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jose Vargas

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Immigration status. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)