Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines

 

 

 Main Discussion Assessment Requests Members Articles
(Featured · New · Popular) Sources Portal

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.

Wikipedia Meetups

October 2024 +/-
NC Triangle Trivia	October 1, 2024 (2024-10-01)
London 209	October 13, 2024 (2024-10-13)
Seattle meetup	October 15, 2024 (2024-10-15)
Oxford 105	October 20, 2024 (2024-10-20)
WikiClub Toronto meetup	October 20, 2024 (2024-10-20)
Wiki Uff da! - Event 1	October 23, 2024 (2024-10-23)
NYC Wikidata Day	October 26, 2024 (2024-10-26)
Chicago Wikidata Day	October 26, 2024 (2024-10-26)
Seattle Wikidata Day	October 26, 2024 (2024-10-26)
San Diego 115	October 26, 2024 (2024-10-26)
BLT Office Hours	October 27, 2024 (2024-10-27)
November 2024 +/-
US Mountain West online	November 12, 2024 (2024-11-12)
Wiki Uff da! - Event 2	November 14, 2024 (2024-11-14)
Wiki Uff da! - Event 3	November 20, 2024 (2024-11-20)
WikiCon Australia 2024	November 23, 2024 (2024-11-23)
BLT Office Hours	November 24, 2024 (2024-11-24)
Full Meetup Calendar • Events calendar on Meta For meetups in other languages, see the list on Meta

Meetups have so far been held in eleven areas in the Philippines:

• Manila (Metro Manila)
• Cebu
• Naga
• Lingayen
• Tacloban
• Calbayog
• Palo
• Catbalogan
• Catarman
• Guiuan
• Borongan

Interactive events

• Chat via Chatroll
• Group Chat via RumbleTalk
• Web stream via Livestream

See also

• Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines
• Wikimedia Philippines

External Link

• Meetup page of Waray Wikipedia

South China Sea naming dispute

Since we have a Sea of Japan naming dispute article, should a companion article be created for the South China Sea naming dispute ? As it is the "South Sea" (PRC/ROC), "East Sea" (Vietnam), "West Philippine Sea" (Philippines) and "South China Sea" (internationally/HK). As the Philippines and HK are English speaking localities of the region, and Vietnam uses "East Sea" internationally in English, there seems to be enough to work from. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Over at the Tagalog Wikipedia article for South China Sea, I proposed splitting that article into 3: Luzon Sea, West Philippine Sea, and South China Sea based on the definitions given by Administrative Order 29 released by the Philippine government. --Bluemask (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

No. The "West" Philippine Sea is a neologism ("pauso") by the Aquino admin; even local media still use "South China Sea" (e.g. "...West Philippine Sea, or the South China Sea..."). There was a local name before the Aquino admin made the pauso: "Luzon Sea", which only covers the part of the sea that straddles the PH; the sea actually goes all the way South to the Strait of Malacca. I don't think it's proper to call that part as "West Philippine Sea" (nor is it proper to call it as "'South China' Sea" anyway but it's the name that is used).

I can probably say there's a dispute once the "West Philippine Sea" gets to be used exclusively, and the government petitions the International Hydrographic Organization to change the name. –HTD 02:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

AO 29 mandates that in all Philippine government publications, the name "West Philippine Sea" is to be used exclusively. As I noted on the Tagalog Wikipedia, the three terms straddle different definitions: the term "Luzon Sea" is the South China Sea within Philippine territory, the term "West Philippine Sea" is the South China Sea within Philippine territory including the waters in and around Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands (basically, the entire South China Sea within our baselines), and the term "South China Sea" is self-explanatory. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I still see PAGASA refer to the sea as "South China Sea"; moreso on media (well mostly on reporting about the weather; it it's about the Scarborough issue, that's when they'll use "West Philippine Sea"). I'd still prefer the use of "South China Sea" on all accounts, even on the Spratlys/Scarborough issue, as that's how it is called, if we'd use "Luzon Sea", "West Philippine Sea" and "South China Sea" according to how they're defined, the articles will be a mess as the articles are using 3 different names to refer to the same thing. It'll be like the "Filipino"/"Filipina" condition. –HTD 05:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I started replacing SCS with WPS in most Philippine geographical articles. The next step is to modify our location maps similar to what NAMRIA is doing now. Basically, my understanding of AO 29 is that it covers only the EEZ waters including Luzon Sea and Palawan Passage. It's like the Philippine Sea is always mistaken for the Pacific Ocean by PAGASA and the media. The thing is most storms do in fact originate from those bodies of water but once they come too close to us, they should be reported as located in PS or WPS. But anyways, I admit this takes a lot of getting used to. --RioHondo (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that those blatant WP:POV edits are being reverted by a number of editors. I also see that you've been warned about your disruptive edits on your talk page. I'm traveling at the moment and editing from internet cafes, so I'll stay out of this for now except to comment that neither your personal POV nor the POV of the RP government determines WP editing standards/guidelines, and that RP government Administrative Orders are not binding on Wikipedia. Generally, the most commonly recognized name for a geographic feature is used in Wikipedia articles (in this case, that would be South China Sea). In some cases (determined on an article-by-article basis per WP:DUE), it might be appropriate to add information that there is some dispute, disagreement, or common alternative naming for a geographic feature, perhaps in an article footnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i realize that's the consensus view and will have to abide by it as part of wp rules. But then, when you think about it, those are just minor edits in mainly Philippine LGU articles that i edited as Luzon Sea (WPS) has in fact been used interchangeably with SCS for centuries. And it was a non-issue then, just like the Philippine Sea and the Pacific Ocean. For example: Baler, Aurora, Catanduanes and Surigao del Sur uses Philippine Sea; but Casiguran, Aurora, Eastern Samar and Siargao Island uses Pacific Ocean. And.. it's funny that you mentioned my talk page cos that's not what we have been arguing there, and that warning was for something else. It's about Scarborough Shoal and how our Chinese friends have been trying to sinify it by calling it Huangyan Island in bold, like they've been doing to other SCS disputed islands. They'd first introduce their chinese names in the opening line (e.g, X Island, also known as Chinese-name..) hoping to get the social media to become familiar with it. And once it gains enough prominence and becomes regular use, they would rename the whole thing at the expense of other claimants. (See:Itu Aba Island move.) --RioHondo (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm presently traveling and editing from internet cafes; I don't have time for long discussions right now. However, re Philippine Sea vs. Pacific Ocean, it seems clear from the WP article on the former that it is a part of the latter. Which of the two names is appropriate would depend on the context, similarly to the way one might describe the city of Seattle as being located on the North American continent, or in the United States, or in the Pacific Northwest, or in the U.S. state of Washington, depending on context. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HTD and Wtmitchell on this. It's blatantly POV. I'd like to slap our government in the head for adding more nationalistic nonsense like this to the already heated dispute. The most commonly recognized name for the sea is still the South China Sea, regardless of what presidents may declare it as. This is, in a sense, stooping to the level of the POV editors who insert Chinese names into internationally recognized names for the Spratlies. Should we then also accept their renamings because we do it as well? No. Both are attempts at propaganda.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a further discussion is needed on this topic, but from another angle.

• Administrative order No. 29 says, in part, "The maritime areas on the western side of the Philippine archipelago are hereby named as the West Philippine Sea. These areas include the Luzon Sea as well as the waters around, within and adjacent to the Kalayaan Island Group and Bajo De Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal." (see [1])
• The South China Sea article says, in part, "The South China Sea is a marginal sea that is part of the Pacific Ocean, encompassing an area from the Singapore and Malacca Straits to the Strait of Taiwan of around 3,500,000 square kilometres (1,400,000 sq mi). The area's importance largely results from one-third of the world's shipping transiting through its waters, and that it is believed to hold huge oil and gas reserves beneath its seabed."

From this, it seems to me that these two terms refer to different waters -- possibly to overlapping waters, but not to congruent waters. From this, it seems to me that the disambiguation page West Philippine Sea needs work, or needs to be removed and replaced with a topical article. That disambiguation page says,

• "The western portion of the Philippine Sea to the east of the Philippines" (is this true? The Philippine Sea article seems to disagree)
• "South China Sea, a body of water referred to as West Philippine Sea by the Philippines" (is this true? see above re AO29)

Other articles might need work as well. The Luzon Sea article, for example, is currently a redirect to the South China Sea article. AO29, however, says that the Luzon Sea is a part of the West Philippine Sea. My impression is that the Luzon Sea is part of the West Philippine Sea (per AO29), and that the West Philippine Sea is part of or overlaps part of the South China Sea. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

If they are indeed separate, as in the "West Philippine Sea" is a subregion of the South China Sea, then yes. I'd be more amenable to its inclusion. But if it's just a locally designated "new name" for the South China Sea, then no.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Cybercrime Prevention Act

I think many of us know already that a few days ago, President Aquino signed Republic Act No. 10175, also known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Given particularly that this law criminalizes online libel, and also given that the definition of what that is has been very unclear (Abigail Valte says our lawyers should determine what constitutes "online libel"), I wonder how people are taking it. What do people have to say about it? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(UPDATE: According to Raissa Robles, the one who inserted the libel provision in the law is, whether by chance or coincidence, Tito Sotto. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC))

Butthurt much? Blake Gripling (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It was inserted during the impeachment of Renato Corona, so I doubt that his turno en contra speeches have anything to do with it. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys do we have any moves on the matter? I'll admit that they got us with our pants down but we have to take action--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we:

1. Plan for an awareness campaign and identify ALL the lawmakers involved in this law
2. Create a wikidelegation together with other representatives from online Filipino media subgroups and go to the IRR discussion
3. (optional) fight for the revision of libel in the 80-year old "Revised" Penal Code

Wikimedia Philippines is the best vehicle for this. We do need a statement though: so far the chapter hasn't released anything on it. Maybe we can partner up with the other local Internet organizations, plus the NUJP for decriminalizing libel? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The EFF has also issued a statement on this - maybe they can join forces in our cause for reform. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay let's do the official statement then Sky :) We can't join other groups if we ourselves have no vision to guide us. We could start by having a main hub to discuss that. Can you create a wikimedia page and have the Tambayan coordinate from there?--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can try to draft something, though be advised that I am doing several final requirements for this semester. (There are greater things to worry about, though: like how this entire brouhaha has gotten a pretty cold reception among Wikipedians. I mean, between here and the Facebook group, only a handful of Filipino Wikipedians have responded. :|) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(indent reset) Don't lose hope. I'm pretty sure there's lots of Pinoy online writers who got irked by the change that will join us. --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too, My blog and a friend's FB profile and blog stand to be affected because of what we've written na maraming tinamaan (that got many people affected).--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the community needs to pressure the chapter to say something. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks, I just thought it would be relevant to point out the existence of 6391: An Act Decriminalizing Libel, authored by Agham Partylist representative Angelo Palmones and Marinduque representative Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco. Not having much of a legal background, I'm uncertain how the passage of such a bill would interact with the currently enacted provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. But we may want to factor the existence of this proposed bill into our discussions about the revision of libel in the RPC. - Alternativity (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we could start with a wiki article :) Visit my sandbox .--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the article up for AFC. By the way, WikiPilipinas beat us to it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what if they did? if the article's not even properly reffed and written in an encyclopedic, NPOV style, wala rin (no difference) --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Relaks lang :) I was just teasing the Tambayan. Anyways, their article did manage to cite the lawmakers involved in the Act and helped with the issue of improving awareness on the subject. That leaves us with the issue on how to be involved with the IRR discussion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed blackout

Some Wikipedians have floated the idea of a blackout on Facebook as a way of protesting against RA 10175. What do others have to say about it? (I would appreciate it if we can get everyone involved in this discussion: it's imperative that we get as many people involved as possible as such a move will have reverberating effects.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This Cybercrime law is somewhat similar to PIPA, ACTA and SOPA abroad in terms of provisions, except those three abroad bills are designed to combat piracy. The point is some of the provisions are vague, and I've skimmed through some of the provisions of Cybercrime law and some of them are vague, and is subject to abuse by powerful persons.

1. There is no limit on who is liable with the website's content -- everyone can be sued, the likers on Facebook, even the individual editors of the Wikipedia community, and even the President, Vice President, or Board members of Wikimedia Philippines, or even Mr. Jimmy Wales himself, can be sued of violations on this Cybercrime law should someone find something what they thought is "libelous".
2. Violating websites can be taken down, no court order. Somewhat our lousy politicians have been inspired by those three controversial laws abroad, and here it is, it seems that the RH Bill is just the coverjacket while something is brewing deep inside. That means if Wikipedia was found to be containing libelous content, it can be taken down immediately, no court order.
3. Access of real time data transmission. This clearly is a violation of the 1986 Constitution Article III Section 3 where we are guaranteed of private communication. No court order.

All in all, this law is FATAL to our Freedom of Speech which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and is also threatening the freedom of the Internet, and hereby threatening the existence of Wikipedia here in the Philippines.

On my note, I have just have a feeling that Internet freedom is more liberal in Singapore than in the Philippines because of this Cybercrime law. --Chitetskoy (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This addition I made recently to Defamation#Philippines might be if interest. 23:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up what's wrong with the law. And to think: the Palace stands by it. (While I agree that we should be responsible with what we say, I don't think this is the best way to approach the issue: with a poorly-crafted law.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree I agree with the proposed blackout and for all of the above agreeing statements. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 01:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But (to re-echo my comments on the Wikipedia Tambayan facebook page), if a blackout is not tenable, we should at least come up with a statement opposing the onerous provisions of R.A. 10175. --- Tito Pao (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Recently added to Defamation#Philippines: As of 30 September 2012,five petitions claiming the law to be unconstitutional had been filed with the Philippine Supreme Court, one by Senator Teofisto Guingona III. The petitions all claim that the law infringes on freedom of expression, due process, equal protection and privacy of communication. -- citing "Cybercrime law Draws Outrage Among Netizens". The Daily Tribune. September 30, 2012. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's willing to do a message blast on Wikipedia to discuss a blackout? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note item #1 at WP:NOTADVOCATE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet the English Wikipedia blacked itself out in January because of SOPA and PIPA? Inasmuch as Wikipedia is not an avenue for advocacy, as far as my interpretation of policy goes this is for Wikipedia articles, and not for the actions of the community as a whole. When the community is affected by external forces, we have no choice but to act, and I don't want to see any Wikipedian, Filipino or otherwise, be affected by this law. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did that decision come about? What discussion occurred, and what level of consensus was there that brought about that blackout?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_94#SOPA_Blackout. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that a wikiproject was formed and there was a consensus there, with support of Jimbo. As this wikiproject is the primary wikiproject for content regarding the Philippines, it does appear this is an appropriate place for this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The law will be in effect in October 3, 2012. Just a heads up. http://ph.news.yahoo.com/pnp-to-facebook-users--we-re-watching-you.html --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I read on Facebook that someone's calling on websites to black themselves out, but I can't source at the moment where the call's coming from. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think that a black out would be the most beneficial strategy for us. At the end of the day this isn't US, it's the Philippines. IMO, we really should focus on drafting a counterproposal instead for the IRR.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Both can go hand-in-hand. However, most efforts are currently aimed at overturning the law, not redefining it. (At the same time, we're not lawyers.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I am in support of a black-out, if the Supreme Court upholds the online libel provision as constitutional (which can actually be). FYI a black-out could be implemented in the Philippines only. -- Namayan (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I doubt we will have a worldwide blackout similar to what the U.S. has, if only because Americans constitute the single largest group of Wikipedians. But back to the Philippines, I think we should be aware that the Supreme Court will only start hearing petitions on this next week, so a lot of things can happen between now and Tuesday. What I would like to see coming from our side though is that we have to do something, anything, which gives some sort of legitimacy to our opposition to RA 10175. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've talked with these guys in Wikimania, if ever we want a protest like January 10, they can block the English Wikipedia in a particular country. Namayan (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• No No blackout, no statement. Let's not hurt Wikipedia's neutrality (and therefore it's credibility) any more than it has already been destroyed by the earlier blackout. Where do you plan on having the real discussion anyways? Ryan Vesey 02:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the earlier blackout, this blackout is localized for the Philippines only, so the rest of the world will not be affected. Most likely discussion will take place here, since this is where Filipino Wikipedians congregate. However, as I have reiterated before, I don't want any Wikipedian, Filipino or otherwise, to be affected by this law's onerous provisions (chief among them the libel and takedown provisions).

Also, I don't see how our credibility is affected because the community decides to take a position on a controversial issue. I've said this previously in the SOPA/PIPA discussion as it was unfolding: the encyclopedia is neutral, but the community is not. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You cannot decide something like this through local consensus. There would need to be a community wide RfC advertised in a watchlist notice at a minimum and probably held in its own page. The fact that this is only blacked out in one country doesn't change the number of on-wiki people who are affected. It would be a different matter if the Tagalog Wikipedia was being discussed (although it still wouldn't occur here). I find it doubtful that there could be jurisdiction (Wikipedia's servers are in Florida) but this discussion doesn't do nearly a good enough job at stating exactly how the law would affect editors or Wikipedia. On another note, I see comments about a statement. Are you talking about speaking for Wikipedia or as part of the Wikimedia foundation? If so, Philippe (WMF) should be contacted. On the concept of neutrality, the encyclopedia is written by the community. If the community is not neutral, there is no way the encyclopedia is and it certainly doesn't improve our credibility in the minds of readers. Ryan Vesey 03:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement would come from Wikimedia Philippines, the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. Officially, the position of the chapter is that we wait for the community's decision before we issue a statement, and the chapter's Vice-President had sent an e-mail to the pertinent mailing lists about this legislation, so we are presuming that people are aware of it. (I sit on the WMPH board, but I am here in a personal capacity.)

In addition, I don't see how it is necessary that we seek the consensus of everyone else, when only people in the Philippines are affected by the legislation. Do understand that 90% of all page views to Wikipedia in the Philippines lead to the English Wikipedia, with the Tagalog Wikipedia coming at a very distant second at only 1.9%, so it is only natural that discussion on a proposed Wikipedia blackout in the Philippines will happen here because this is where most Wikipedians in the Philippines are, and this is where most of our audience is. Inasmuch as we are here writing a neutral encyclopedia, we are also entitled to our political views, and a number of Wikipedians are worried about the ramifications this law has on our activities. Fact of the matter is, if we've allowed (and supported, mind you) a blackout of Wikipedia because of an American issue like SOPA and PIPA, why can't we have a meaningful discussion on a blackout in the Philippines, where editors will be affected on terms much more punitive that what SOPA or PIPA could ever demand for? Imagine that: 12-17 years in jail for cyber-libel, where "libel" in our legal jurisprudence is interpreted not as intent, but rather substance?! And you want us to stand idly by while the law goes into effect starting today (PST)? Pray tell, do people outside the Philippines really care about a piece of legislation that affects Wikipedians in the Philippines, to the extent that we have to involve them in any sort of discussion involving a blackout which will only take place in the Philippines, which will most likely be discussed only by Philippine media, and whose ramifications will only be limited to the Philippines? I don't think so.

Anyway, if you want to see how the law affects Filipino netizens, Wikipedians especially, here's an article for you: Digital Martial Law: 10 scary things about the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Thanks. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to debate the merits of a possible blackout in this forum. There is absolutely zero chance that the English Wikipedia will be blacked out in the Philippines unless you bring this to a forum where it can be discussed by all editors, not just those in the Philippines. It won't just affect Filipinos, consider this and this. These get global attention. Ryan Vesey 04:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to announce it at the village pump and invite other editors to discuss the merits here, then please, be our guest and do so. But this is a Philippine issue, so there is merit to discussing the issue here. If non-Filipinos see this discussion and want to join in, then they're more than welcome to do so.

On the Russian Wikipedia blackout: I have seen no discernible impact on our part on how their blackout has in any way affected the English Wikipedia (whether here or otherwise, as I was in Poland at the time the blackout over there went into effect), or Wikipedia editors outside Russia. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with blackout. This law threatens Wikipedia's very existence in the Philippines, the same way that SOPA and PIPA did. While the encyclopedia itself should stay neutral, Wikipedia as a website cannot afford to. TheCoffee (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Improve the article first, then discuss on what to do with blackouts. –HTD 07:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Is too much to ask if you can lead the charge, Howard? ;) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I already edited the lead; now if the people put effort in improving the article instead of discussing here that doesn't not directly benefit the article, then certain priorities would have to be changed. –HTD 13:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no new edits to the article. Anyway, I don't think this is a reflection of wrong priorities: both efforts can go hand-in-hand. I want RA 10175 to be as detailed as the article on SOPA, but with lots of details either inaccessible or unavailable we're constrained with what we have. (In addition, I will copyedit the article: I want to add new material but I am too swamped by academics to be able to write new material at this time.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That's because I did those yesterday. I neutralized (for lack of a better word) the formerly shitty and POV lead. There's no need for yours truly to edit the lead anew when I did it yesterday and the article wasn't expanded to expand the lead too.

We're all swamped with something but if we have time to check out if someone did an edit, surely there's time for a sentence update or two, just like what I did yesterday with the update on the SC's deferral on any action. I dunno how many people had participated in this discussion but if everyone can contribute something there instead of here, we could've educated the public on what this law is, instead of achieving, as of the moment, nothing. –HTD 14:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

How are we doing nothing if we're deciding whether or not we as a community are taking a stand? I understand the need for people to know the law, but remember likewise that we are affected by it as well. Inasmuch as I'd like to educate people about the law, I don't think we can do that if we're currently languishing in jail should the government decide to enforce the law, right? After all, we're human too. But anyway, I added an overview section which I hope covers the basics: feel free to expand it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with blackout. And yep, it threatens WP's existence... Man this is like SOPA Philippines.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix PNX (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing sinebot :( .. ANYWAYS People are already blacking out since like, yesterday... Even I (Phoenix Enero on FB) blacked out. Phoenix PNX (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not signing is not a problem: just remember to do it next time. And since you're on Facebook, feel free to join our Facebook group! :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with blackout and to all agree sentiments. --Renzoy16 | Contact Me 13:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Would not it be more fitting for the blackout to cover Philippine-language Wikipedias? Starczamora (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is responsible for 90% of all Wikipedia traffic in the Philippines (the statistics are available online courtesy of http://stats.wikimedia.org), so if we want maximum impact we need to do an English Wikipedia blackout. However, I have also opened a parallel discussion on the Tagalog Wikipedia. The other Philippine-language Wikipedias may join in as well, but the decision to black out needs to be a decision of their community, and not of the Filipino community here on the English Wikipedia (even if these overlap). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm largely apolitical when it comes to the Philippine government. The wikidelegation or a [real-life] protest from the local chapter sounds like a good idea (though I won't be joining in of course, given that I'm out in the jungles). I'm ambivalent on a local blackout since it would be mostly ineffective anyway, as most Filipinos actually consult the English Wikipedia, rather than their native language Wikipedias. I oppose an English Wikipedia blackout, despite my stance on the SOPA affair. We don't yet know how it affects the enwp. And I don't think we can actually convince the entire enwp community to agree to it. We should only focus on how this affects us, as Wikipedians, rather than how it affects all Filipinos. Though they are not necessarily separate. The potential of the law for censorship of Philippine articles is quite real, but let's not go overboard just yet. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is for a localized blackout of the English Wikipedia which will not affect users outside the Philippines (unlike the SOPA blackout), so I don't think we need to convince non-Filipinos about the validity of a blackout which will not result in global Wikipedia outages for 24 hours. As I wrote in the Village Pump, Wikipedia essentially cannot continue arguing that it's in an ivory tower, isolated from the legal happenings that are taking place throughout the world just because its servers are located in the U.S. An analogous example would be Facebook in the Philippines: its servers are mostly in the United States, and the content in Facebook should only be subject to U.S. law. But why are so many people protesting the effects of RA 10175 on our Facebook culture? It's because the law punishes users: that's why Wikipedians are at particular risk of being punished for libel or whatnot because regardless of where the data is stored, the act was still conducted in the Philippines and we're still subject to Philippine law. (And personally, I think this does affect us as Filipino Wikipedians: as I've said before and as I'll say again, I want no Wikipedian, Filipino or foreign, to be affected by this law. I don't want us to be the subject of lawsuits simply because, for example, we decided to put on the article on Tito Sotto that he was being "cyber-bullied" by Filipino netizens.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was possible. Can enwp be blacked out locally without affecting access from other countries? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. Namayan also confirmed this when he went to Wikimania earlier this year. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we have the article in the "In the News" section of the Main Page to reach a wider audience? Thanks for the article improvements BTW. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Lenticel's idea to reach a wider audience --—-— .:Seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. We need to make a statement by making a local blackout of the English Wikipedia along with other local-language Wikipedias (tagalog,kapampangan, cebuano,etc..), but this will be localized, i.e: in the Philippines only. --—-— .:Seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. "We need to make a statement". No we don't. Wikipedia should not be making statements. Ryan Vesey 04:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important that we dichotomize Wikipedia the encyclopedia and Wikipedia the community. I will agree that the former should uphold its neutrality and should seek to cover the world from an impartial standpoint. But I cannot agree that the latter should sit down, shut up and wait for the problem to go away: as I have said previously, Wikipedia cannot afford to argue that it's in an ivory tower and the situation on the ground is not its problem. Wikipedia may be a neutral ground for all of us, but editors still naturally possess their own opinions, biases, et al. which cannot be eliminated by simply being part of the Wikipedia community, even if many have tried (me being one of them). It begs the question: how do we have a Wikipedia, a neutral one at that, if every one of us is discouraged by lose-lose legislation where, either way, not only do we discourage new people from joining, but even discourage existing editors from editing because the law threatens them with fines and imprisonment for even the most minor infractions, should whoever the plaintiff be decide it be so? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just went to the Cybercrime forum at UP Law Center yesterday. The law is clearly messed up. For starters, it is 10 years outdated.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As what Harry Roque (and now TG Guingona said): "The law itself has provisions that are unconstitutional and they cannot be corrected by IRR." Likewise, the gall of Edgardo Angara to insinuate that just because something posted online goes global, it becomes an aggravating circumstance when used in cases of libel. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: After reading the Act (as I was expanding the article on the Act here on the English Wikipedia), I have discovered that the law has universal jurisdiction. Filipino Wikipedians outside the Philippines, you may also be prosecuted for violations of RA 10175 under Section 21 of the Act! --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Be done on 10-11-12 starting 13:14:15. --Exec8 (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The public should be more aware the we are against this such kind of laws. --Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 12:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. If the Supreme Court does not issue a TRO. -- Namayan (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. That is if the Supreme Court approves the law, and not issuing any TRO's. Hamham31Heke! 04:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The online libel provisions affects the work of Filipino Wikipedians in ensuring that articles are fair, balanced, and neutral. --seav (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral. I'm only voicing may opinion ok. I'm either against the law, or doesn't seem to notice the law. Is the government, ok. The Philippine Government aware of what it is trying to imply? Is it capable of hacking, stalking, and controlling the network, the Internet to be exact? Like it is being done in China, and in the past in Libya, and most especially in U.K. and U.S.? Is it capable of imprisoning someone who had violated the law? I don't think it is not yet. There in no office or facilitator or whatever official there is to control the Internet, though it is said in the law that the DOJ Secretary has 'all the powers' to sue someone or even imprison if found guilty. I MEAN WHAT's the use of the protest if it will be heard on deaf ears? OK. If we have to do a protest. IT MUST LEAVE AN IMPRESSION. A LASTING ONE. But, up to this point, I can still download anything, without getting any threats or anything. I can still voice my heckler-being without anyone arguing & saying 'I would sue you.' Let's not over react shall we? If the government is really serious about this law, PLDT, Google, and Globe Telecom would be tapped for every person to be detected under GPS for violating the law. If Sotto is right, every hashtag of his #Sottoying will be sued, based on the parameters of Cyber-Gibberish Law written by those political wannabees. I just don't like the idea of blacking out wikipedia, dragging the neutrality of news like those Philippine News Agencies are doing here. BUT IF WE HAVE TO DO IT. WE MUST HAVE A LASTING IMPRESSION 4 IT to be noticed. :) God Bless and may the truth be on our side. Dominicanarquia (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we have to wait for the law to actually be fully implemented (that won't happen until the IRR is in place, and they're only going to start drafting the IRR tomorrow) in order to make a statement. Given that Wikipedia is, according to Alexa, the seventh-most visited website in the Philippines, any sort of protest action on our part will make noise. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree I believe that since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and disseminates free knowledge to the world, and Filipino Wikipedians were also part of building this institution, our voice to amend or even repeal the Cyberlaw must be heard not only in the Philippines but worldwide. Maybe a blackout on Philippine-related articles could be enough.

To repeat: the proposal is for a localized blackout of Wikipedia. This means that there will be a blackout in the Philippines, but other countries will not be affected. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, Strongly It's a lose-lose-lose proposition. (Lose 1) The opportunity cost is too high. Wikipedia exists to lift people up through education. They Google something, go to Wikipedia and learn something. It's instant. They will not Google the same thing the next day. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people will be left permanently ignorant if we go dark for a day.

(Lose 2) And what do we get in response? Nothing. The bill is already law, unlike the previous blackout. That blackout stopped a bad thing by forcing politicians to do something right then and there. Journalist went to them and they were forced to withdraw their support; the bill died in the House. If we do a blackout, what do we want politicians to DO? There is nothing they can do. The law is already the law. It is unlikely that we can get a bill filed, passed and signed repealing the Cybercrime bill until after the 2013 election, and even then we would have to overcome PNoy.

(Lose 3) It will damage Wikipedia's attempt to be seen as a neutral, trusted source. We are not just another political pressure group.

One side but important point: the problem to me seems not to be the Cybercrime bill but the libel law itself. Regardless of what happens to the Cybercrime bill, the Libel law is still a threat to free speech (one of many). Shouldn't we be focusing on the bigger bill, the Libel law? If we change the Libel law, won't that change the Cybercrime bill?

We will leave people in ignorance, damage Wikipedia image and not impact the law. It's a lose-lose-lose proposition. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. There is a difference between this and previous blackouts. The Cybercrime Law is getting lots of press. Everyone seems to be talking about it. In the previous blackouts, the threat was unknown outside of a few internet-focused groups. The primary goal of the previous blackouts was to raise awareness. That goal doesn't exist here. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to respond on the following points:

• On the first point: Wikipedia does seek to uphold education, but I doubt we're jeopardizing our vision and mission through a one-day local blackout. It's not like just because people can't access something one day, they will no longer choose to access it: they will just access it the next day, especially if it's something that Filipino netizens have resoundingly opposed.
• On the second point: There are efforts to have the law be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The SC will begin hearing the 10+ petitions on the law tomorrow, and there are protests scheduled at the Supreme Court grounds to that effect. At the same time, there are already bills filed which seek to amend the "questionable" provisions of the law, including Section 4(c)(4). However, this is beyond the libel provision: there are many problems with the law, such as the takedown clause (Section 19), the universal jurisdiction clause (Section 21) and the data retention, disclosure and seizure clauses (Section 13-15).
• On the third point: How is it that just because Wikipedia is neutral, its editor community has to become neutral too? To quote myself from the SOPA blackout: "As far as I'm concerned, neutrality is implied to be editorial neutrality...I don't think however that "neutrality" in the Wikimedia sense is the same as how Jehovah's Witnesses claim neutrality in worldly conflict: just because we espouse an editorial policy which advocates neutrality of content, it doesn't necessarily imply that the projects themselves should be neutral in cases of so-called "worldly conflict"..." What should the community do if we are threatened by something? Sit down and do nothing?

The Cybercrime Prevention Act may have gotten a lot of press, if only because people have complained against it from when news broke out that it was signed into law last September. Under all of our noses, if I may add. Either way, I am not ready to allow any member of the community to be affected by this law. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Strongly Believe that this law will suppress of what we commonly advocate " The free knowledge". This is not only to copy on what Wikipedian did in Protests against SOPA and PIPA but on what will affect us all. Especially in the biography editor. Some policy that will greatly affect the Wikipedia as a whole are the provision in the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 giving the government with so much power like TAKE down the site without trial. Such as monitoring the data traffic Here Below Sec. 4 (a)(3), which includes data interference, defined as "the intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses," in the list of cybercrime offenses;

Sometimes we make the leaked information as reference. So this time we must be aware.

What about editors in this case? Yes we have vandalism in somehow but we can manage to make things right. Alterarion in Wikipedia is common but got to jail seems a grave action. Not helping out skilled volunteers or editor.

-- Sec. 4(c)(4), which criminalizes libel, not only on the internet, but also on "any other similar means which may be devised in the future;" -- Sec. 12, which authorizes the real-time collection of traffic data;

I got sued already. Libel case that is before the cybercrime law. Its a personal experience already to share. My post is not libelous ( Malicious) I just tell the public on how much was the project cost and the take some photo.

-- Sec. 17, which authorizes service providers and law enforcement agencies to "completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination" order;

What if the government turns and attack free knowledge? Because most of the lawmakers decide on favor for them? What is there is another commercial Wikipedia-like site and fund a certain number of lawmakers? Making wikipedia an Illegal?

-- Sec. 19, which authorizes the DOJ to block access to computer data when such data "is prima facie found to be in violation of the provisions of this Act;" and

-- Sec. 20, which states that those who fail to comply with provisions of Chapter IV (Enforcement and Implementation), specifically orders from law enforcement agencies, shall face imprisonment of prision correctional (6 months and 1 day to 6 years) in its maximum period or a fine of P100,000 or both, for each noncompliance.

If we did the blackout on Wikipedia. This may give a somehow call to lawmakers. Since according to Alexa.com is on rank 7 on most visited sites.

Yes to BACKOUT, Even for one year.

Bonvallite (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The tide's turning, the Cybercrime Act's hugely unpopular, overreaching, and difficult to enforce. I think hold back on a blackout unless there's some resurgence, like if the government tries to actually enforce the Cybercrime farce. For now, let's just make noise on Facebook, sign the online petition on Pirate Bay, participate in the many venues that want the law amended or repealed. ZoneSeek | Talk 08:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless the courts or Congress have done something, I am not ready to say that the tide's turning just yet. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to Filipino Freethinkers, there's another law looming: House Bill No. 6187, also known as the "Anti-Online Piracy Act" (AOPA). When will this end? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the one behind that is connected to big media companies made me cringe. They couldn't just move on and be open on their works. Alas, they only care about the money, making pawns out of the artists they sign into. Another commentator compared SOPA to the Prohibition in the United States in the US back in the 1920s to early 1930s. The law was simply too strong and draconian, and it only led to people buying more booze, and in turn, American Mafia bosses profiteering from it. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I'm more wary of sudden takedown, private data collection and other "invasive" clauses, which have a more chilling effect compared to online libel. We should do this once the Supreme Court acts in favor of the said law. - Ian Lopez @ 02:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Supreme Court has issued a TRO, but we should remain vigilant. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Imagine if we had to register a dedicated account just for surfing the Net and only for the purpose of buying cars, clothes, whatever most celebrities and politicians can afford these days. Kevzspeare (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured Photograph

Has there been any Filipino Wikipedian/Wikimedian whose photograph been a Featured Picture? -- Namayan (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, none. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There are photos by Seav that gained the featured picture status. These are... File:Ph map manila.svg, File:Ph physical map.png and File:Apparent retrograde motion of Mars in 2003.gif. Regards, Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 12:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

These don't count as these are illustrations, not photographs. So far, there is no featured photograph from the Philippines, although I did suggest a few in the past. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Antonio Miranda Rodriguez

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Los Angeles Pobladores#Filipino Pabladore?. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

LRT-MRT changing color designations

Earlier this afternoon, I bought a stored value ticket at the MRT. They are now using a new design for the stored value tickets and it seems that the color designations for LRT-MRT lanes have been changed. Based on the ticket, the new colors for the lanes are: green for LRT-1, blue for LRT-2 and yellow for MRT-3 (I'll upload a scanned copy of the ticket later and post it in the MRT article). I've been thinking of changing the titles for the LRT-MRT articles because of this. Are there any official announcement from DOTC that the train colors have been changed? -WayKurat (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is, but the scheme is not completely implemented. For example, LRT-1 and MRT-2 have not yet adopted the new scheme despite the announcement. This was one of the reasons why I argued against changing the Strong Republic Transit System article: until there is full implementation, we should hold off on it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There is yellow line paint present at all MRT stations. The selection yellow color in the EDSA line is pretty obvious. --Exec8 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Orange Line (PNR Commuter Express) has no new line color. :| --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the MRT stations were painted yellow, the trains and the signage are still predominately blue. Does the LRT-1 and MRT-2 stations have change their color scheme? -WayKurat (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the exterior of MRT-3 stations, they're still blue (at least the parts that have since painted yellow inside the stations). No discernible color changes are visible on either LRT-1 or MRT-2. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobon for Philippine Law

Please help in making this infobox or template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Philippine_Law_Infobox

Forum group on facebook, forum like setup for more fluid and effective tool for discussions.

Hello Tambayan Philippines, hello Kababayan...

It has come to my attention that the discussions done here are via a rather, in my opinion, awkward talk page with not that much connections, etc., it just feels odd I think. I believe we can discuss more effectively in a forum system like on our facebook group, which is why I have decided to establish it.

You can find our group here at this link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/441877832502321/members/

--LakanBanwa (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, LakanBanwa. We already have a group here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/wikimediaph, which is maintained by Wikimedia Philippines, the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please feel free to join that group. Thanks. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, I will still keep my page up, as I am forming a group that feels dedicated to improving, and perhaps adding more to Philippine related articles... In my opinion, a lot of them need serious work, and a lot of friends connected know a lot of interesting information and findings...--70.134.64.100 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want, you can invite all of them to the main group. Collaboration is always better when more Wikipedians are involved in the process, and since most Wikipedians are already in the main group, it would be better if we keep the community together rather than divide them across multiple Facebook groups. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Diacritical marks in Filipino/Tagalog; proper spelling of words

Every time I see them I feel like I'm in Rizal's time or something. Why even bother, nobody uses the accents anymore except perhaps non-native speakers and people learning the language from outdated guidebooks.

Also who uses "tsitsaron" instead of "chicharon" in this day and age? 182.18.208.2 (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean the "tuldik"? Im not a Filipino/Tagalog editor but I remember having learned that in elementary and i'm talking about the 1990s or a full century after Rizal's time lol. Now that actually got me wondering, when did they ever stop using the tuldik? I remember there was even the pakupya like this ^, our Filipino teacher telling us Tagalog was that 'konsistent' unlike English ('di-konsistent') and Spanish ('semi-konsistent'). But anyways, so when did Tagalog ever become free of diacritics? -- RioHondo (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)