Talk:BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PS-15)

Violations of WP:NPOV in lead section

1. ) BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15) is only as capable as a coast guard cutter ever was (built to civilian maritime policing specifications with no armour protection and other redundancies built in, it is not a naval vessel per say so please bear this in mind), and is not meant for open naval warfare.
2. ) The term "slated to be the largest and most capable combat vessel" is open to very subjective intepretation and doesn't even come close to actually describing the vessel in the lead section, more explanation below.
3. ) Without any operational missile armaments for anti-ship and/or anti-air warfare, the ship is literally a sitting duck which I will not go further to burst any bubbles which some Phil Wikipedians might harbour here and out there. Hence, describing it as a Patrol Frigate (PF) per the vessel's hull classification number isn't very far from the truth.

• Please note that due to all of the above, I have reword the lead section to better provide the description of the vessel. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dave,

1. ) While its true that the ship was a coast guard cutter, she is being geared-up to do more than coast guard duties, even if the ship was built to civilian specifications. It would also include open warfare if necessary.
2. ) "Largest and most capable" is indeed subjective interpretation, but in this case, it can be best used considering that there is nothing in the Philippine Navy's current assets, even its current destroyer escort, that can match her size, speed (for such size), helicopter capability, range, sensors (with reportedly more to be provided), and weapons (more to be provided). Remember the USCGC Mellon was even fitted with Harpoon missile capability before, showing the capability of Hamilton class cutters to be armed if necessary.
3. ) While it may be a Patrol Frigate due to its current weapons and sensor fit, the hull classification "PF" is not applicable for relation to its "patrol" duties according to Philippine Navy code designation standards as posted [[1]] and [[2]]. "P" classifies it as a "surface combatant" while "F" classifies it as a frigate or destroyer escort. If the Philippine Navy ever gets a FFG in the future, it will still have the hull classification "PF", except if changes occur with the classification guidelines.

Although there's nothing wrong with the changes, so is the old description. -- phichanad 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (modified 09:42, 06 May 2012)

Ship Armaments

Due to lack of official writing from reputable source on the final weapon fit of the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® followed official Wikipedia guidelines to remove alterations to the article with non-conforming sources. Previously I indicated some additions made by the Philippine Navy which were visible in photos and confirmed by Philippine Navy crew of the ship, as well as forum sources, but actual news sources from before the modification period only indicated it as a plan. As this are the rules, then so be it.

Until such, I would like to confirm the presence of the following weapons on this ship as of its commissioning last November 2011:

• 1 x OTO Melara Mk.75 76mm/62 Compact
• 1 x Mk. 38 Mod. 0 Mount with M242 Bushmaster 25mm chain gun aft (mounted on previous position of Phalanx CIWS)
• 2 x Mk. 16 20mm guns on midships (port and starboard side)
• 6 x 50-cal Machine Guns (two forward below the main gun, two at flight deck shoulder extensions, and two near the Mk.38 gun aft).

Until such time that no official source is available for this claim, it would be better to keep this in the talk page only. -- phichanad 09:00, 06 May 2012 (UTC)

• Phichanad, please read up on WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. Also, bear in mind that those rules were not made by me and it is not explicitly made so to impede editors from contributing but rather to hold us accountable for our contributions and/or uploads. FWIW, I don't enjoy it as much as you would like to think so, but if that is what it takes to build a proper and respected Online Encyclopedia (per WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia), then we really have do our part to help make the dream come true. Best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Dave,

No worries, I understand and read clearly. -- phichanad 09:42, 06 May 2012 (UTC)

Panatag Shoal Standoff

I have restored the Panatag Shoal section. This is noteworthy and referenced infomormation that is relevant to this article. Please feel free to improve the article, but do not remove the info just to edit war, or because you 'Don't like it'. I think it would be best to discuss and gain consensus before removing the section. Preferably this noteworthy incident could be better detailed (with additional references of course). Thank you in advance for taking the time to discus. 31.186.86.42 (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC) I have updated more info on the Panatag Shoal. I found this at Global Security and I made a reference by copying the one above. Please make sure this is the right thing. Thank you. 12:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)(Signature) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.186.86.42 (talk)

• Removed rubbish per WP:BRD (strongly suggest that you read it carefully before reintroducing it again), please note what you're violating has nothing to do with what other editors think but that of Wikipedia's editing policy - WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that we are not a newspaper (per point 2 of WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper). Last warning to you, take heed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting relevant policy to make later pointmaking by all parties easier :

As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.
2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)
3. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)
4. A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person.

Needless to say, I believe "newsy" is subject to debate, under the parameters of EACH of these points.- Alternativity (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

On the second level section "Panatag Shoal Standoff" supposedly being "Newsy"

Main point: The section concerned lists operational deployments. And this is the ship's first major operational deployment, the previous ones being shakedown deployments and standard excercises. In fact, this is the ship's first "notable" deployment, because the deployment sparked an international incident. If this isn't a notable operational deployment, there shouldn't be anything in that category at all.

Additional points per item under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

• Items 3 (Who's who) and 4 (A Diary) aren't relevant as far as I can tell.
• On Item 1 (Journalism): No information was added as firsthand information. As far as I can tell, all entries in that section were cited from verifiable sources. Although yes, that leaves the question of whether it was written in "news style". But that would call for a rewrite, not an erasure of CITED content.
• On Item 2 (News Reports): While this policy says "most newsworthy events do not qualify", it does not say "ALL newsworthy events do not qualify". For obvious reasons. The items cited hardly fall in the category of "routine news". If you were to interpret it that way, most of this article would be "newsy." Are we going to remove all of THAT as well? Bottom-line here, we go to the standards set in Wikipedia:Notability (events). Let me have dinner for a few moments and I'll get back to you on this. - Alternativity (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Points from Wikipedia:Notability

The event WP:EFFECT An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.

• The role played by the BRP Gregorio del Pilar led to a standoff between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China that has since led to seven diplomatic protests on the part of the Philippines alone.
• Also, it represents the continuance of historical tensions in that region of the ocean.
• I can go further to discuss more effects, but I'll stop there for the moment and argue that this is more than enough. Certainly this makes THIS deployment more significant than the first two cited in the article. Unless you're going to argue for their removal.

WP:GEOSCOPE Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.

• The event had a clear direct impact on the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China, a somewhat direct impact on Taiwan (who have also asserted their claim), an indirect impact on all of ASEAN, and on the national interests of the United States and Japan, both of whom have expressed "deep concern".
• How much wider can the impact get, exactly?

The Coverage WP:INDEPTH An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. WP:DIVERSE Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.

• Coverage of this incident, because it sparked the panatag shoal standoff, has been continued and diverse, as the links cited show, and are in-depth. A google search will show this to be true, so I won't argue in detail any more.

A suggestion or two after this. Lemme gather my thoughts. - Alternativity (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

General thoughts

• One can perhaps question the title "Panatag Shoal Standoff". The standoff itself is an ongoing event sparked by incident described in this section. While the ship's role DID constitute part of the standoff, the ship has not been part of the entire standoff. Perhaps "Panatag Shoal Incident" (including the text "the BRP Gregorio del Pilar's role marked the beginning of the Panatag Shoal Standoff, which continued even after the ship had left.
• Perhaps you DO think this was written in a newsy manner. I disagree, but I will say I thought the phraseology was still awkward and could stand improvement. That's reason to rewrite, not delete.
• I thus believe the section should be restored. I think someone else can do that, though. Enough that I've presented my arguments for retention, at this point.
• Please note that some might take offense at the use of the word "rubbish" when, as far as I can tell from wikipedia policy, the material is "arguably legitimate contribution." You have the right to that opinion, if it is honestly held, and I suppose we should take as such under the principle of Wikipedia: assume good faith. So let me state instead that I feel the section IS in fact a perfectly legitimate (if at the moment also still awkwardly phrased) contribution.
• Thank you for your reading my points. - Alternativity (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In looking at other ships in the category (such as BRP_Rajah_Lakandula_(PF-4), and in reviewing the referenced sections of noteworthyness, this is obviously pertinent to the article. I am going to relabel the section "Noteworthy Operations" and include the information. It is obviously an improvement to the article. Looks like there is an editor that wants to remove this for political purposes, but I see only neutral facts being included from the several reliable sources. Executive summary: The Philippines have recently added a new flagship to their modest fleet and it almost immediately is involved in an operation noteworthy on a local and regional scale that has global implications. Desk Ref (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Hello. Our entries resulted in an edit conflict. I hope you don't mind that I put my entry in the space above yours, since it's just the continuation of the... er... monologue. :D Hm. I sorta smell politics too, but I think I'll Wikipedia: assume good faith for now. Anyway. Thanks. - Alternativity (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi User:Desk Ref. I'm somewhat uncomfortable about the sections "Operational Deployments" and "Notable Operations" being present at the same time, because as far as I can tell, they mean the same thing. (Or at least, one is a major subcategory of the other. But I'm uncertain which would be the major category. hehe.) Just my thoughts at this point. What do you think? - Alternativity (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, on re-reading the section above my edit I find that you have a good point. Do you think you could pull the 2 sections together? Desk Ref (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)