User talk:112.206.198.125

Re: Marcos dictatorship story

Please don't add the same paragraph on all articles for Philippine cities, municipalities and provinces. It's just redundant and you are just adding the same content. The only difference is the name of the place. -WayKurat (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, all information regarding the dictatorship of Marcos between 1972 to 1986 are missing in almost all history segments of provinces and regions of the Philippines in Wikipedia. Please look this up. History before 1970 and after 1990 are present. The absence of history regarding the Marcos era is suspicious.

There is already as separate article about that period: History of the Philippines (1965–86). No need to re-add that paragraph in all of the articles for Philippine provinces, cities and municipalities because that is already covered by that article. -WayKurat (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please also note that the information you added is often inaccurate because it is so sweeping. Generally saying there 'thousands' of victims belonging to a particular locality or ethnic group, when it is not supported by sources, does a great disservice to actual documented victims of the era. When Martial Law Human Rights violations do form an important part of the history of a locality, please make sure that you document it properly. Please see the content at Cordillera_Administrative_Region#Background as an example of the level of documentation needed. It's still a bit rough, but I feel it's a good start. If you really want to help document the Marcos era, please be careful to be accurate and to document your assertions carefully. - Alternativity (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your suggestions. I appreciate and respect constructive criticism. I'll do that to preserve Wikipedia's policy and get more sources to verify data, however, in some of the articles, history before 1972 and after 1986 were clearly stated, while nothing in regard to the Marcos was present. I understand that there is already a main article for the Marcos era, but there are also existing articles regarding the classical era, the Spanish era, the American period, and the 4-year Japanese occupation, yet those periods have been clearly stated in many of the articles I edited. In those articles, the approximately 21-year Marcos era was strangely non-existent. I hope you will also look into this in-depth. Again, thank you.

---