Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I will help in the investigation. I'll start from the last article listed. Moray An Par (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance in cleaning up Filmographies / TV show lists of Filipino artists

Hi. I would like seek assistance regarding the cleanup of the Filmography list of Filipino artists. There is a certain anon lurking on the 112.210.xxx.xxx and 112.206.xxx.xxx subnets adding questionable shows and films on almost all of the artists who became popular during the late 80's and early 90's (examples are Randy Santiago, Joey Marquez, Vic Sotto, and Roderick Paulate among others). The anon keeps on adding the following shows constantly on those artists, namely Barangay U.S.: Unang Sigaw, Purungtong, Estudyante Blues, Plaza 1899, Sergeant Palpak, Mikee, The Maricel Drama Special among others. Personally, I have no idea if the first five shows I have mentioned even aired or existed, even more suspicious, the anon adds the same list of shows on all of the artists he edits. Kindly assist. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Territorial disputes in the South China Sea

I have tagged this accordingly, and although most of the news stateside is the possible upcoming conflict between Vietnam and Red China regarding these Islands, the Philippines has a claim to some islands as well, and are sending the Rajah Humabon. See:

As a project we should work to improving this article from stub quality, and information n the Republic of the Philippines claim(s), as well as any conflict that may occur. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Philippine Economic History, 1973-1986

Wow, this is a mess. I've started copyediting. Please help! Bearian (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's also a political hotbed and probably best edited by an impartial editor (from what I can see though, a good part of it look very essayish, especially considering that it's using only two sources). That period is often blamed as the source for the massive debt incurred from the IMF by the Philippines and the resulting economic decline.-- ObsidinSoul 18:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I renamed the article. Moray An Par (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This smells like anti-Marcos B.S. I know he did really bad things but we should all be neutral -- which probably means the article's scope should be expanded, from the pre-colonial times to the present. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I actually think it is a very interesting subject. Knowing how the Philippines slipped from a leading East Asian economy to a laggard is a central question that should be answered if the country is to move forward at the greatest possible pace. Ignorance and misunderstanding of the various Philippine presidencies and devolvement of discussion into simplistic personality centered arguments or claims of corruption is the usual practice. I laud attempts to actually cite numbers like this article does. Compared to most other Philippine-related articles the article isn't that bad. It reads coherently for the most part even if one detects POV and would prefer more sources. It needs improvement and balancing, but it's a reasonable start. Unless it was a cut and paste job the person who wrote it seems to have put some effort into it.

HTD, I disagree with the apathy I detect in your comments. Neutrality does not mean watering things down so everything blends in with the background; it means giving as much as possible a fair objective assessment to a arrive at a conclusion—a conclusion which can be very negative or very positive depending on the evidence. If the facts show that Marcos was terrible for the economy, the article should not bury or dodge that detail by swamping it with other material from other eras to be "neutral". That's sticking one's head in the sand. Same treatment should apply to any other president too. Lambanog (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably acknowledge that, but the motives in the creation of the article are suspect at best. And that's WP:AGF already -- why don't include Marcos' first terms? Because he was good enough? (Fact: Marcos built schoolbuildings in his first year than Macapagal in his entire term.) Same for other presidents -- by the time Macapagal was president the situation was bad already; the economic deterioration did not start when Marcos took office, in fact some people would tell you it all started when Macapagal ordered the peso to be freely floated. Even political scientists tell you that Estrada was better than Arroyo in most aspects.
What we need is a series of "History of the Philippines" articles, such as political history, economic history, demographic history, etc., before we delve into the specific time periods. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Other issues aside, methinks that this should be merged into a mother article, Economic history of the Philippines, which will observe the relevant chronology. 180.194.28.208 (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is "West Philippine Sea" notable?

Right now, West Philippine Sea redirects to South China Sea. I haven't read all of the news items about this, but is WPS really just a Philippine synonym for SCS or is WPS a "subset" of SCS, in which case the redirect might not be entirely appropriate? --seav (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources verifying that it is named that by some, than it should be included in a terminology section in the South China Sea article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears to already be in the Names section, but it does need references, least it be deleted due to WP:BURDEN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I made the redirect on the presumption that the Philippine government refers to the whole sea as the West Philippine Sea. The "subset" of the South China Sea that you're referring to within Philippine waters is the Luzon Sea, not the West Philippine Sea. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand Marcos War Record

Er, this is far from my field of expertise, and I think it requires at least some knowledge of the topic to do this, but the Ferdinand Marcos page has no mention of his war record. Or the controversy attached thereto. Hm. This will be a specific point many people will turn to wiki about, with the proposed burial and all. Hm, thorny one, I know. Any takers? - Alternativity (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, probably a good suggestion. It would need to be done carefully, IAW WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Just be careful. Some loyalist faptard probably would be more than happy to embellish the fake hero's "battle records." We need editors who have access to the National Archives that can dig up the US Army investigation into the Maharlika unit that turned out to be fake.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done a bit of research and am preparing a few paragraphs on this topic.--elchori01 —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

WikiCon

I would like to gauge the community if we can gather in Manila for a WikiConference this October 22-23, 2011, Wikimedia PH can work to get travel expenses, accommodation covered (at least for those based in the country). All we would basically need is your time, presence, thoughts and ideas. The main objective is set direction for the Wikipedia Philippine community, plus boost our Philippine language projects. Plus we would like to arrange seminars from the concerned academe, Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino to guide us in broadening our scope especially when writing in our local languages. The dates are tentative as well as the agenda, and if you have anything more in mind that will be great to see if we can push through with this conference.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 13:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Good luck and godspeed on this endeavor. Being a Filipino American in Chula Vista, if there will be any web-conferences that I can attend, do let me know, but travel to the RP/PI is not possible for myself. A web conference would work well for all involved given the distances for some who are members of this WikiProject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that if we are to plan a full-scale Philippine Wikimedia Conference, October is too soon given our timeframe. I'm inclined to have it next year rather than this year so that we have ample time to plan. Likewise, whatever plans we have now I hope will be able to run in parallel with potentially hosting Wikimania 2013 in celebration of the tenth anniversary of Philippine Wikimedia. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

section idea

I was thinking to myself at work, while hungry, why there isn't that much exposure regarding Filipino food here in the United States. In doing so, I began googling up the subject under 'Philippine food american exposure' and came up with the following interesting hits:

The last appears to fall under WP:SPS, but I think the subject should be covered somewhere here on Wikipedia. Should it be under the culture or invisible minority section of Filipino American, or should it be under Cuisine of the Philippines? Are there others who maybe intersted in this topic? Is it notable enough to warrant inclusion here in Wikipedia? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have invited editors from possibly related WikiProjects, as well as from the American cuisine and Philippine cuisine articles, to take a look at this article per WP:CANVASS#appropriate notification. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why no comments regarding this possible subject? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad marketing of course. Balut probably features as prominently as any other Filipino dish on American airwaves and adobo which is said by many to be the national dish has a name of Spanish origin. So what is the logical least path of resistance thought process? Filipino food is bizarre and scary and highly derivative. It's actually true to an extent. But give me sinigang over tom yum or pho anyday and Jollibee Chickenjoy or a lechon manok or chicken inasal over Popeye's or Church's chicken. Lambanog (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Compounded by the fact that we do delight in horrifying foreigners with the most bizarre dishes we can think of from here (even if we ourselves rarely eat them, if ever). example here. Then there are the inaccurate portrayals from Fear Factor and such with their Balut fixation. When I say Filipino cuisine, most of my non-Filipino friends immediately think of Balut, Asocena, Dinuguan, and Papaitan. The funny thing is, I too avoid eating those (ew). Well except for Dinuguan, and only those not made with offal. And if not for our own fault of presenting it primarily as a 'blood dish' just so we can amuse ourselves at the shrieks of horror from friends, it's actually not much different from other blood-based dishes in Europe (blood sausages are scarier to me anyway).
And yep, similarity. Paella, adobo, turron, pastillas, tapa, chorizo, caldereta, escabeche, torta, champurrado, chicharon, bizcocho are just some of the examples of Filipino dishes sharing names with other hispanic dishes. A lot of them are derivative, but others are unique to Filipino cuisine but have spanish names like maja blanca and adobo. Others are actually Chinese in origin and are known better as Chinese cuisine elsewhere. Examples being spring rolls (our lumpia), siopao (better known as bao or sio bao elsewhere), arroz caldo (congee), pancit (versions of stir fried noodles from China, Korea, and Japan are more widely known), misua, etc. I get the impression that the only dishes most Filipinos consider as truly Filipino are the desserts, and only because in most cases they kept their native names. And let's face it, the Philippines has never had a primarily meat-based cuisine unlike Western cultures, and most of our dishes are extremely perishable and/or variable by region.
Anyway, imo it should be under Cuisine of the Philippines, but I'm hesitant considering that it is about a single geographical region (the US) and thus not globally true. -- ObsidinSoul 13:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps there can be a section on Philippine Cuisine in the Filipino Diaspora, and the regions they live, and sub-sections for each of those. For instance, Filipino Cuisine could differ greatly in Riyadh, then in Chicago. Perhaps, it can be like how early Chinese American dishes were very heavily influenced by Cantonese Chinese cuisine, where as there is now more of a variety with different regional flavors becoming more prevalent.
Perhaps, if we can find references to support it, we can show how Pampangan cuisine, such as Sisig, has become more prevalent/influential in the United States due to its proximity to Clark Air Base/Fort Stotsenburg; whereas it is not as common as other regional cuisines within the Philippines itself or other nation's where the diaspora live. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that would hew close to OR, more suitable on a blog than on Wikipedia. Lambanog (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Obviously if my statement cannot be supported by a reliable source (thus my statement about finding a reference), then it doesn't warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.
How prevalent is Sisig in the PI/RP? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Very. It's a very popular pulutan ('finger food') and accompanies most inuman gatherings ('drinking parties', though it's not really a party). It's consumed as a main dish as well. -- ObsidinSoul 06:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Not being able to afford to travel back recently (last trip was in '98), I was unaware. Thank you.
Found other sources, even though it is just a mention:
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
A suggestion, it might be better to include research into the status of Filipino cuisine in other countries as well. Say, Canada (which does have a sizable Filipino population), Europe, and Oceania, the Middle East, etc. That would justify its addition to Philippine cuisine, similar to the subsection Japanese cuisine#Cuisine outside of Japan in Japanese cuisine.-- ObsidinSoul 12:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Perhaps to avoid WP:CABAL we should take this discussion to Talk:Philippine cuisine?

With my references above this should be enough to start a paragraph for the United States sub-section of the new section. Perhaps the next nation to look at cuisine wise is Saudi Arabia as it has the next largest Diaspora population, followed by Canada. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, you ask why Filipino cuisine has a lower profile than it probably should. I would submit that your addition to the article is a perfect example of why. Lambanog (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

For those interested I have created a related userbox. Enjoy. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Content removal discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Philippine cuisine#Philippine cuisine in the United States. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Japanese occupation of the Philippines

Due to a removal of a potential POV statement found in the lead, I have started a War Crimes section that is greatly needed within the article. Any assistance in expanding this new section is appreciated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Supershow (TV series)

Can the Wikipedians from the Visayas confirm this show? --Bluemask (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not from Visayas but based from the other articles created by the originator of this article (User:Mbsetv15), this may be another show on the creator's "fictitious" network, 'Matab-ang Broadcasting System Entertainment TV". -WayKurat (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm from Mindanao, but still within the Visayan ethnoregion. I have never heard of the TV show, the network, or their movies. They are very very likely to be hoaxes. It's a bit more apparent if you speak Bisaya.
  • "Sarah Lawas" - "Lawas" means 'body' or 'figure'. Rough tagalog equivalent: "Sarah Katawan", and yes, with all the lecherous connotations to it intact. The description of her 'career' also includes movie credits for 'Cornee Netto'. That is actually slang for "corny" in Visayan. Credit for a movie named 'Abnormal' "as herself" speaks for itself.
  • "Matab-ang Broadcasting System Entertainment TV" - "Matab-ang" means 'bland', 'lacking flavor', 'dull', 'lacking excitement', 'so-so', 'boring'. A bit suspicious for a TV network name, yeah? Unless... it mainly focused on comedies, which seems a bit unlikely.
  • Regine Villaflor - um... "Negra"? "Peekaboo Girls"?
So yeah, no evidence of existence, most probably a group of high school students or something making fun of each other with inside jokes. Also Two Different Tears needs to be speedied as well.-- ObsidinSoul 07:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked and all of the fake articles have been deleted. I brought the user to Fvasconcellos's attention and immediate action has been done. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipage of Lebak, Sultan Kudarat undergone overhauled

When the Municipal Planning and Development Or (MPDO) provide me a copy of socio-economic profile of the Municipality of Lebak I made the major changes of the said page. Including the wrong geolocation. Now the Geolocation pointing to the municipal hall. I also added photos, infobox and the site which is also under development. Someone in the wiki official chatroom told me that need more reference. If from other site. I will make a reference. Someone can help me update it please

Here is my refference [1] Bonvallite (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Independent Order of Odd Fellows Philippines

This is another poorly-written Philippine-related article, below the radar, that has been nominated for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Meetup

Hi guys. Anyone here interested in having a Wikipedia meetup? It's been a while since the community last met and got together, so I certainly hope we can get to know each other and have nice Wikipedia-related chatter over coffee or something. :P --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

article support

I need anyone who has a good command of Japanese with translating the Japanese titles here. I'll complete the plot summaries before I go live with this. To the guys who saw me at Manila 5, this is the series I was talking about. If you need help with downloading or other related work, andito yung (here's the) discussion at WP:ANIME. Help would be much appreciated. Thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Philippine presidential election, 2004

I'm calling your attention to this article. I want to update it to reflect the current revelations of cheating but I don't know where to begin. Perhaps someone can give a headstart and I'll just add more information. - Windows72106 (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You can try at Hello Garci scandal but I dunno if the Batasan ER switching issue is connected to that. –HTD 08:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It probably is because all the allegations of cheating in the 2004 elections go back to the Hello Garci scandal. Then again, this probably deserves its own article should enough information about it be released. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The only reason for the current revelations to be included in the Hello Garci scandal is that if the break-in was referenced in the tapes. Otherwise, a Controversies in the Philippine presidential election, 2010 should be created where Hello Garci would be its child article. –HTD 13:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
It may not be explicitly mentioned in the tapes (or is it?), but the famous "'Yung milyon, 'yung milyon" of the former President, among other revelations in the tapes, is probably credence enough that there was intent to cheat. While we are not privy to the methods, we can't discount that there were hints from the Hello Garci tapes which led to the switching of ERs. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, but if a reliable source says the ER switching was mentioned in the tapes it can go there. –HTD 15:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Annual report translation

I need "Annual Report" translated into the 8 Philippine language Wikipedias

Except for Tagalog and those in bold, I'm not sure of the accuracy of the other languages.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Cebuano: It's Tinuig nga taho if you want something purely 'native' (the far more common usage is Bislish Tinuig nga report, or simply Annual report). Other possibilities (depending on what you mean exactly by 'annual report') are Tinuig nga balita (Annual news) and Tinuig nga pahibalo (Annual notices).-- Obsidin Soul 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Also I don't speak Waray-Waray, but it's closer to Cebuano and Hiligaynon than to Tagalog. I'm fairly sure Panhitabo means 'happening' or 'event', not exactly close to the meaning of 'report'.-- Obsidin Soul 18:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Bansa.org dictionaries tell me that "annual" is banua-banua or banuahan in Kapampangan, and report in Cebuano (within the context of an annual report) is asoy, taho or ulat. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping a local speaker can provide me info, we must understand the intent of it's use, not just base it on dictionaries alone. Banua-banua is taon-taon in Tagalog. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 10:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I am a native Cebuano speaker btw.-- Obsidin Soul 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, this is slowly shaping up. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 13:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
For waray-waray, use "Tinuig nga Sumat" for more accurate translation of Annual Report. Obsidian Soul is right that Tinu-ig nga Panhitabo means Annual event or happening.--JinJian (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waray-Waray_Wikipedia

A heads up on this one, too. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not voting on this one because of my involvement with the chapter, but I did leave a few lines' worth of comments for everyone's perusal. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition to Resistance section

Interested editors are invited to see a discussion that I have started on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines talk page, regarding a recent edition by an IP editor. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

There is disagreement on the inclusion of the term West Philippine Sea in the Philippines article. Input is requested. 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Use South China Sea. I don't like to be like the Koreans who'd insist on using "East Sea" on the Sea of Japan (dunno if they do that in Wikipedia). –HTD 15:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Great Wikimedia Philippines Membership Drive is back! :P

Several times over the last five years, the group of Wikipedians (all Tambayan regulars at one point or another) which eventually established Wikimedia Philippines have called for Filipino Wikipedians to join the chapter so that we can better-advance in the real world the reasons why we are here on Wikipedia: sharing free knowledge. It came to a point where we had up to almost 50 interested participants, but after restarting when the chapter was formed, only a handful have joined since. If you want to help make Wikipedia's dreams a reality, come join us today!

Remember: anyone can join Wikimedia Philippines, whether or not you're Filipino, young or old, living in the Philippines or abroad. We can really use the involvement of more Wikipedians in how the chapter is run and the projects the chapter should do, so we really hope all Filipino Wikipedians can come together and make Wikipedia's vision a reality. So what are you waiting for? :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Philippine Wikimedia Conference

Hi guys. A few weeks ago, Scorpion prinz posted a section here on the Tambayan about a proposed Philippine Wikimedia Conference. Wikimedia Philippines will be pushing through with this project, and the conference is (tentatively) scheduled for February 2012. We can use volunteers and, most importantly, people who will come! Anyone interested? :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to make it October 2012. :)--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Well either way, I'm hoping people will be interested in showing up. After all, it's supposed to be the community's conference. ;) --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ferdinand Marcos and TfD:Template:The Marcoses

Members of this project, please come and have a look at TfD:Template:The Marcoses. There is a discussion there which is highly relevant to your project. In the course of considering a proposal to delete Template:The Marcoses I discovered that links to articles about many opponents of, and some collaborators with, Ferdinand Marcos are not linked to the text in his article, merely to this concealed and badly named navbox, which is now proposed for deletion. These include Insurgency in the Philippines, New People's Army, Moro National Liberation Front, Assassination of Ninoy Aquino, NAMFREL and People Power Revolution. Also, Constitution of the Philippines is a link hidden underneath alternative text, and Rolex 12 only appears without elaboration under "See also". Some of these are in danger of being orphaned. I sincerely hope that someone here will take an interest in rectifying the situation. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 22:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:The Marcoses

I have opened a discussion topic Template name and contents at Template_talk:The_Marcoses. Rubywine . talk 10:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Philippine Scripts

The articles "Baybayin" and "Ancient Philippine Scripts" should be merged. They largely overlap in subject matter.

Both need improvement. "Baybayin" proposes to describe six hypotheses about the origins of the old Philippine writing system, and actually lists five. It states the proposed source supported by each theory, but does not identify who proposed it or where. "Ancient Philippine Scripts" does name the authors, but fails to give any further reference. Bibiographically, this sucks. The reader will probably resort to Google to try to suss out the missing info, and will be treated instead to a gazillion quotes and rip-offs of--Wikipedia! Full bibliographical citations, conformed to the standards of Turabian or other generally accepted authority, are what we need. Also the discussion should be updated. There are two recent new proposals for an origin of the Philippine scripts, Comandante's fanciful idea that the system is 5000 years old and the letters based on shapes on the shells of giant clams, and Miller's derivation of the consonants from the Gujarati abugida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen.r (talkcontribs) 05:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Benigno Aquino, Jr. + Ferdinand Marcos = EDIT WARS!

Hello, everyone. I am a Wikipedia newbie- I only started editing last June, when I volunteered to do some research on Ferdinand Marcos' war record. Since then I have tried my hand at editing Wikipedia, and it's been both easier and harder than I expected. The pages of Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Ferdinand Marcos are particularly problematic. The discussion pages of both have numerous comments regarding unsourced assertions and the lack of a NPOV (in contrast, Corazon Aquino seems to be more or less acceptable). My attempts at addressing both issues have been stymied by the efforts of Rubywine, who seems to have grave doubts as to my impartiality. I have tried to engage Rubywine in dialogue several times, but instead she has reported me for Vandalism and conducted an edit war. I am quite distressed by the manner in which Rubywine refuses to engage in dialogue and threatens editors unless they edit articles in a manner pleasing to her. I have no wish to escalate the edit war, so I am putting off work on these two pages for the meantime. As I mentioned, I am a newbie, so feedback and guidance from the experienced editors here would be appreciated. Thanks for your time! Elchori01 (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest for areas were you cannot find an agreement to request for comment from other non-involved members of the larger editing community. If you believe that is an EW going on, there is an appropriate board that specializes with dealing with such things.
Also read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, that may assist you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ambos Camarines, opinion anyone?

In my opinion, the history of Ambos Camarines during World War 2 should not be found on the article, because it was already extinct decades before WWII erupted. IP range 112.198.79.XX, in good faith, keeps on adding information about such "Battle of Ambos Camarines", which, according to his edits, was one of the major Allied powers victory during the war. I did a little Google searches, Battle of Camarines (web), Battle of Camarines (books), Battle of Ambos Camarines (web) and Battle of Ambos Camarines (books): all of searches made didn't mention anything about the WWII. Since I doubt the veracity of the facts added by the editor, I removed all of them. Any opinion?--— JL 09 talkcontribs    21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • He also did some edits to 5th Infantry Division saying that it existed in WWII liberation campaigns though it was created in 1989.
  • Also in 10th Infantry Division, created in 2006, he said that it also helped in WWII liberation.
I guess this user will invoke a "potential problem" if he keeps on adding "Battle of xxxx" stuff on Philippine articles. I mean, well, this thing and information could exist in Philippine military history books, but at least, we need verifiable information here, rather than clinging to something.--— JL 09 talkcontribs    22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
See WP:BURDEN. It is up to the adding editor to included verifiable reliable sources to support any added material to an article. If they do not, any editor may remove the content per BURDEN. If the editor continues to follow this course of action, assume good faith, remove the material, and politely inform/warn them that they are not following accepted community practices. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

2007 census

I've started to update the towns in Iloilo with 2007 census information from here: 2007 Census results. Is this the best source for 2007 census data? Has the 2010 census data been released anywhere yet? PaintedCarpet (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Data from the 2010 census should have already been made available, but the PSGC (Philippine Standard Geographic Code) database only has population figures as of August 1, 2007. I wonder what's taking the NSO and NSCB so long to release the data in question. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ginamos

Can anybody tell me if ginamos is the same thing as bagoong alamang? I want to bluelink references of ginamos to Shrimp Paste, but if bagoong alamang and ginamos are different products, then ginamos would need its own mention. Thanks. PaintedCarpet (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Guinamos or Ginamos refers specifically to fermented fish (usually anchovies) in Visayan. Equivalent to the Tagalog Bagoong isda ("Fish bagoong"). The problem is that Northern Filipinos, AFAIK, use Bagoong to usually refer to the fish kind, but it's technically a word that includes other kinds of fermented food.
Bagoong alamang (simply Alamang or Uyap in Visayan languages), is of course, made with shrimp. So no. Ginamos is not equivalent to Bagoong alamang, in popular usage it is equivalent to Bagoong, in specific usage it is equivalent to Bagoong isda.
You should bluelink Ginamos to Bagoong instead. It contains an explanation there too.-- Obsidin Soul 04:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
There's the explaination I was looking for. Thanks! PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed name changes - multi-move discussion about bird names

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the naming discussion taking place at Talk:Palawan Peacock-pheasant#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment from supporting WikiProjects

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)#Before FAR. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Re: SC reverses its ruling on the cityhood of 16 towns, again!

Referring to previous discussions on the subject (see here and here), I've noticed that of the 16 cities which have been validated as such [1], the List of cities in the Philippines mentions none while only Batac, Tandag, and Taybayas are shown to be cities on the List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines, which apart from does not separately list the province of Dinagat Islands.

Also, has Bauan, Batangas accomplished cityhood? Otherwise, these edits should be undone:

--Emaster82 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm wondering for how long will this issue continue. This is a long story to write if anyone is planning to create an article about it. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
If someone wants to write about this, the proper article name is League of Cities of the Philippines vs. COMELEC. –HTD 11:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Questionable notability of Mariano Laya Armington

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mariano Laya Armington#Notability. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

FAC for 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States)

I have nominated the article 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment (United States) for FA. The review can be found here. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate. Any assistance with this nomination would be greatly appretiated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Was I just personally attacked on a talk page? Anyway, Lakandula needs attention.

Hi folks. This is re: Talk:Rajah_Lakan_Dula#The_title_of_this_article_needs_to_change... Y'all know me from my edits, right? And y'all know my interest in precolonial Philippines. Perhaps I'm reacting too quickly,but I'm enraged by the accusations of 112.204.172.22 at Rajah Lakandula. I am uncertain what to do, because the article as it stands is a mess, largely due to POV vandalism over the years (not that the article was ever really in great shape). I've been accused of bias, and on that basis would like to largely inhibit myself from editing the article. Would some folks here perhaps like to take over? - Alternativity (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup you've been personally attacked. I suggest that you report it then continue editing the article. don't let a couple of IP's slow you down ;). --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm far more concerned with the constant reverting edits. Attacks against me, I can take. Constantly making the article reflect his/her POV (And the IP has more time to edit than I do), even if done in good faith, well, that IS bothersome. Especially since the edits are political in nature, being rabidly anti-Macapagal-Arroyo. (For the record, I'm not fond of GMA myself, so I take offense, but not more than usual in a political discussion. But article talk pages are not venues for political discussion, yes? That's why I'm not responding on the talk page.) The IP has undone basically everything I've done with the lead and name sections, which I had done as a baseline measure before I have time to properly expand the article. (Danged real life busyness.) I think what I'll do now is take a day off and work on the less controversial aspects of the article before I revert the lead. At least that should establish the bonafides of my sourcework - not that the IP cares because he doesn't cite sources himself. - Alternativity (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: bias...dunno. Are you in any way related to, have worked for, or *are* Lakandula? :P Shrumster (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Undelete request

Request for our resident adminstrators.

Deleted in 2007 because of missing copyright information. I will include the requirements of fair use when undeleted. --Bluemask (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Done kindly provide the image fair use and copy info ASAP.--Lenticel (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Fair use information already placed. --Bluemask (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

New Philippine Barnstar

Philippine Barnstar Hires.png

Created new hi-res Philippine barnstar base on File:Original Barnstar Hires.png. See also Wikipedia:Barnstars 2.0. Comments welcome. TheCoffee (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm... I think the blue is too dark?-- Obsidin Soul 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded a new version with a nice brighter blue. :) TheCoffee (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Much better. :) -- Obsidin Soul 11:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we ought to merge the Philippine Barnstar with the (separate) Philippine Barnstar of National Merit. I wonder why we even have a separate Barnstar of National Merit if we have an existing barnstar. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice one :) --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Jose Cojuangco

This person and his family (including daughter Corazon Aquino) are doubtless important. However the article itself seems to be as much about the family as the man. The section on his brothers and their children, for example, might be unnecessarily long. Likewise, the description of each of his children may be longer than necessary. Lastly, there are two sections devoted to his business and family after his death. If anyone is interested in business and politics this article could use a good review.   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sa aking mga Kabata authenticity?

Please check: edit.--— JL 09 talkcontribs    10:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I always knew there was something fishy about that poem. No complaints on the section.-- Obsidin Soul 11:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think the Apocrypha tag is deserved. I'm adding more sources currently.-- Obsidin Soul 11:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

NO OTHER WOMAN ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA

Hi Admin, just want to let you know that, "Now That You're Gone" was originally sung by Sharon Cuneta. Also, please change the word sang to sung. Thanks

OLIVER


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.78.153 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we encourage ordinary people to be bold and edit articles. If you see mistakes, feel free to correct them. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

New article: Primer Group of Companies

Another editor created the article Primer Group of Companies. I added some references, but I would appreciate it if other editors could take a look at the article. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 23:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it was taken from some flyer. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

work needed on coin articles

Hi, Philippine five peso coin and several similar coins need some work - the articles have zero text, though they have infoboxes. They were PRODded and dePRODded: they could go to AfD but it would be better if someone developed them. Thanks. PamD 08:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a barebones description. Really not an expert on numismatics though.-- Obsidin Soul 12:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Realized. Would be cool if peeps who have the old coins scanned/photographed them for upload to the Commons/WP. Then we could add "history" sections to the coins to show how they've changed over the decades. Shrumster (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem is... wouldn't they all be fair use? -- Obsidin Soul 12:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Depends on the currency. Not sure with Philippine currency. But Wikipedia/wikimedia has its own license/disclaimer for world currencies anyway. Shrumster (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Philippine currencies aren't. :( We have the equivalent of an NC clause in CC when it comes to government works, LOL. *sigh*... -- Obsidin Soul 14:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

List is not exhaustive in regards to permanent resident allowances

This list fails to point out that Filipinos that are permanent residents of the UK or EU can freely travel to UK nations and EU nations.

It also fails to point out that a USA PR from the Philippines can travel freely to Canada and Mexico. muffins2000 at gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.186.238 (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the list Visa requirements for Filipino citizens, the coverage of that list only pertains to Filipinos holding Philippine passports only. Permanent residence does not count in the list as not all Philippine passport holders are permanent residents of the U.S. or the EU. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

then why are there other listings here of such allowances? maybe they should also be removed?

Cuyo, Palawan

Cuyo, Palawan - Just a heads-up in case anyone wants to clean stuff. Found something resembling advertising down somewhere in the bottom of the article. Too busy to do anything right now just thought I should bring some attention to it. Shrumster (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed what I can. I suspect a large part of the text is also copyvio. -- Obsidin Soul 12:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added Tambayan Philippines to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 21:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New Bataan, Compostela Valley

Guys can you take a look at New Bataan, Compostela Valley? Though the facts listed there are impressive, they are not sourced. Also a lot of the text in the article are full of peacock words and are unsourced. I did some preliminary fixes such as adding an infobox and deleting the tourism section which was just sourced to a blog --Lenticel (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Image requests

Can someone make an image like File:Metro Manila location map.svg and File:Philippines location map.svg for Northern & Southern Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and CALABARZON? If images are created we can create location map templates such as Template:Location map Metro Manila and Template:Location map Philippines. –HTD 12:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong Republic Transit System

Hi. Answers to the questions raised at the talk page are highly appreciated. Additions to this list with sources about rail transportation in the Philippines as well. Cheers, Utnog La (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.jpg

The deletion of File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.jpg and File:Vice-Presidential Flag.jpg (commons:File:Vice-Presidential Flag.jpg) are currently being discussed over at Commons.

also

-- Bluemask (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

More headaches. -_____- --Sky Harbor (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome Template

Hey folks, it's been a while since I rolled out the welcome mat for someone, but I want to do so now. I do recall we have a Tambayan welcome template somewhere. Er, would someone mind pointing me in the right direction? (Also, wouldn't that be a good thing to have in the tools section of our project page? :D Hm. Unless I'm blinnd and it's actually there. :S :D - Alternativity (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Tagalog grammar has only one citation

Tagalog Grammar still has only 1 citation, despite the 3 year presence of a template requesting sources and verification. This leads me to believe that it contains original research, or has copyright issues. I am planning to reduce it to a stub soon if no citations are added, or if it is not rewritten.--Elchori01 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Concluding copyright infringement without evidence is unwarranted; and reducing it to a stub just because it's OR is rather drastic isn't it? I suggest doing what you should have done in the first place - find references.-- Obsidin Soul 15:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sa Latin

Kumusta kayo? Pwedeng humingi ako ng advice? Sigurado ako sa Latin ko sa latin wikipedia, pero parating mey notice na mali daw. Im very sure na hinde naman. Yung iba Philippine related. Sa wikimedia kaya ako pumunta? Baka kasi mey discrimination kasi kaya dito muna ako nag hihingi nang advice.--Jondel (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hindi ba na kinokorektahan nila ang Latin ng mga tagagamit doon kapag may kamalian upang "mapaayos" ito? Hindi man ako aktibo o may kaugnayan sa Wikipedia sa Latin, mahirap patunayan na may "diskriminasyon" na naganap hanggang mayroon kang ebidensiyang may intensiyon silang gawin iyon. Maaari nga lang na nagkaroon ng kawalang-intindihan at nararapat na humingi ka roon ng paglilinaw tungkol sa mga pangyayaring naganap.
(Don't they correct users' Latin if they find something wrong so that they can "fix" it? I may not be active nor have any involvement on the Latin Wikipedia, but it is hard to prove that there was "discrimination" going on without any evidence pointing to them having the intention to do such. It could be that a misunderstanding took place and I think it would be appropriate to ask for clarification with respect to what happened there.)
For future reference: I think it's appropriate that we do two things: either stick to English as the language of the Tambayan, or allow the use of Philippine languages with simultaneous English translations. After all, a significant chunk of the community does not speak Filipino. --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
See WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The same guideline allows the use of foreign languages in certain circumstances. In the case of the Tambayan, it has historically been tolerant of the use of Philippine languages despite English being the primary language of the notice board. --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your inputs Sky Harbor and Bill.They should just correct what they think it is wrong. Instead, they neither indicate where it can be corrected nor correct it themselves. I feel singled out for the supposed bad latin. Perhaps I should stick to English/Filipino. I should assume good faith and not conclude that "discrimination " is going on .--Jondel (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Further Actions and Concerns about Kapampangan Wikipedia

I'm about to begin standardisation of Kapampangan on WikiKapampangan using Filipino variant. And my first target now is to translate and/or revise the spellings of countries by redirecting it into a new page bearing the Filipino (Kapampangan) variant spellings. Well, I'm still in doubt if the Holy Angels University has somehow the right of regulation on Kapampangan language. Moreover, we are in an environment where there is no strong regulation of our language. And for that, all I have to do is to revise the old Spanish variant spellings into the daily-used Filipino-variant spellings and take note of them as well. As what Sky Harbor had discussed with my first concern about this before, it will be important for the Kapampangan Wikipedia to adopt a unified written standard should one not exist which satisfies the needs of the project. If a compromise between the Spanish and Filipino orthographies is necessary (as is the compromise on the Tagalog Wikipedia, mostly for place names), then by all means, we should push through with it.

I have forgotten of who that Filipino Wikipedian told me that I might be setting an appointment with the dean or school principal of Holy Angels University in Angeles City, Pampanga to discuss about Kapampangan Wikipedia. And so, by the time that I get in touch with a certain personnel in that university, I'm also planning that I would also introduce the revised spellings of Kapampangan words using the Filipino variant as the basis so as to give them an idea that they should adopt such spellings to suit the modern trend of Kapampangan language.
As of now, I don't see any of the admins there being active in creating and revising articles, though I'm planning to request for adminship for WikiKapampangan. But as far as the issue about the standard variant for WikiKapampangan is concerned, all I would like to have is to have WikiKapampangan adopt the unified standard variant. Moreover, I may say that WikiKapampangan is slowly getting known by some Kapampangans, especially the ones who constantly gets online to seek information. Not bad for WikiKapampangan right? I hope that there would be some more Kapampangans to help me push through with my proposal of using Filipino variant for the standard orthography. -- Leeheonjin (talk) 14 November, 2011 23:35 (UTC)
Katimawan2005 recently did the Kapampangan translations for the fundraiser: consult with him about it, as I told you before. (Also, refrain from calling the Kapampangan Wikipedia "WikiKapampangan", the name is intended by WikiPilipinas for a competing product.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a piece of advice, we understand that orthography issues in our languages are even much older than us and will never be resolved in our lifetime. And there will be people who will continuously challenge it whether or not there will be institutions that will be mandated to standardize each language. In this case I believe it would be best to respect the style of the writer. I guess we can use the English Wikipedia as model, with regard to either using American or British English, the writer/article just has to be consistent all through out. This for me should also apply to Tagalog, if the writers prefers to use Spanish derived or pure Tagalog words. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 06:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

On File:Flag of the Philippines (light blue).svg, the years used, and Template:Country data Philippines.

According to the Flag of the Philippines article, the flag of the Philippines with "navy blue" color was changed to have a "light blue" color (File:Flag of the Philippines (light blue).svg). It states that the flag was used from 1981 to 1986. The source of this statement is from the Flags of the World website referenced in the article, found at http://www.fotw.net/flags/ph-blue.html#1985. The header there indeed states that the flag was used from 1981 to 1986. However, as I read on I found an inconsistency with the information there. Notice the dates in bold.

It seems that the flag was changed not in 1981, but actually in 1985. Other articles at the FOTW website like http://www.fotw.net/flags/ph-hist.html#desc also had 1985 as the year the flag changed.

I also found an article by Manuel L. Quezon III at http://pcdspo.gov.ph/2011/05/30/the-philippine-flag-belongs-to-a-family/. There is a link near the bottom of the page that led to the text of Executive Order No. 1010 which states 1985 is the year the Marcos tried to change the color. It is at http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1985/eo_1010_1985.html but I've included some of the text below.

The "light blue" flag is being used in Wikipedia articles and templates where the "navy blue" flag should be used. The change only lasted from 1985 to 1986, not 1981 to 1986. The info at the Flag article should be corrected, but more importantly, Template:Country data Philippines should also be corrected. (Only an administrator can edit that template). The other articles can just be corrected later. Mk32 (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objects, I will go ahead and request a change over at the WikiProject Flag Template. Mk32 (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to play that role, then. The flag used is based on period, not the actual time the flag was used. In that case, since the 1985 flag was the last flag used by the Fourth Republic, the 1985 flag is used to represent 1981-1986. I don't see what's wrong with the current arrangement. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, then this explanation should be acknowledged at the Flag of the Philippines article, detailing how the flag only came into existence in 1985, but is used to symbolize the entirety of the Fourth Republic (1981-1986), and I have no problem with that setup. (At the time that I noticed the discrepancy in dates, there was no such explanation at the article.) However, my main problem with the 1981 date concerns Template:Country data Philippines. This template displays variations of the flag (1898, 1901, 1908, 1912, 1919, 1981) all of which are based on when the said flag was introduced, not what era it represented, except for 1981. So it is an issue of consistency for the template. Because of the 1981 date on the template, the 1985 flag gets displayed on articles about events (mostly sports, Olympics, etc) from 1981 to 1984, before the flag ever existed. The flag is retroactively applied to those events, where the navy blue one should be. It gives the impression that the light blue flag was the one paraded and used in sports events (like for example Philippines at the 1984 Summer Olympics). Mk32 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Get together and workshop for Wikimedians and Wikipedians

Veteran Wikipedians and Wikimedians, I am inviting you to a get together on November 20, 6pm at Aristocrat Restaurant, Jupiter St., Makati. Asaf Bartov, Head of the Global South Relationships of WMF will be there. You can also meet him before the dinner at 4pm in Starbucks Walter Mart. Also, I am inviting you to a workshop that will be conducted by Asaf on November 26, 10am-4pm at GeiserMaclang, 6th Flr. Cambridge Center Building, 108 Tordesillas corner Gallardo Streets, Salcedo Village, Makati. Kindly confirm your attendance. See the tour schedule of Asaf Bartov here. --Jojit (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may ask, does this count as Manila 15? --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a scheduled Kapihan on November 26. So, technically, yes. :-) --Jojit (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that there are separate articles for GMA Network and GMA Network, Inc.?

See the merge/move/redirect discussion at Talk:GMA Network#Sorta merger/move proposal: Are GMA Network and GMA Network, Inc. separate persons?. Up next are ABS-CBN and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation. –HTD 16:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Laguna (province)

Someone prodded Laguna (province) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion because it was unreferenced. I deprodded it, but someone should add references. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Dingel and his Water Car

Would some kind souls please help look into the Daniel Dingel article? I'm not sure what to do with it myself, I'm afraid. - Alternativity (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Arggh! The article is a mess. I'll try what I could salvage.--Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem is lack of online sources. Back in the 90's this guy was a sensation but unless someone goes to a newspaper archive, we won't be able to confirm some vital info about him.--Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 153#Request for Comment: SOPA and a strike

The header seems pretty self-explanatory save for SOPA: SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act that is currently being proposed in the U.S. Congress. Since obviously we'll be affected by such a blackout as well, what does the community think of this? --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Campaigns and Battles of the Philippine–American War

Please see/join the discussion taking place at Battles of the Philippine–American War#Merge with List of Philippine insurrection campaigns. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Merged article published -- needs review

Please see Talk:Battles of the Philippine–American War#Merged article needs review. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • "Philippine Insurrection" is an obsolete term. 121.54.29.68 (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Problematic article

I've come across a handful of articles that seem to have been machine-translated, possibly from Tagalog, relating to the Philippines. Could someone with local expertise take a look at them and see if they should be salvaged or deleted?

  • Tiyakad - some form of game, possibly notable.
  • Hotel Koresco - a hotel in Cagayan de Oro; probably non-notable, and currently proposed for deletion.
  • Limketkai Hotel and Resort - another hotel; probably notable if the claims are accurate, but very hard to read even after cleanup.
  • Centrio - mall/hotel, possibly not notable.

Thanks! Shimgray | talk | 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiyakad is real enough. It's a traditional game played on stilts, but the article is currently completely incomprehensible and I'm too unfamiliar with the game itself to clean it up.
I'm familiar with Limketkai Mall, quite notable and a landmark of the city. However, AFAIK Limketkai Hotel and Resort were just a bunch of scaffolding last time I checked, heh. Ditto with Centrio. Both are violating WP:CRYSTAL, not to mention the WP:NPOV problem, probably copyvios of press kits or something. Hotel Koresco is probably not notable.-- Obsidin Soul 16:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Tiyakad must've been machine translated. It's awful. –HTD 17:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It's hilarious: "the new player uses half of coconut shells which have had widow with a mole in its hole for its fortress." LMAO. -- Obsidin Soul 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Circball - a Filipino invented sport

Fig. 1 - Circball Hoop
  • Circball – invented by a Filipino, is a variant of the game of basketball played between two teams with 6 players on each team on a circular court having a pole (without a backboard) with a back to back double hoop at the top encircled by a larger hoop. Circball has unique game rules that is played using a combination of a competitive and a cooperative game of play.

Need help in creating this article in Tagalog to be placed in the Tagalog section of the Philippine Wikipedia. A draft article in English can be viewed at User:GalingPinas/Circball. Can someone help in translating this article into the Tagalog language please? Thanks GalingPinas (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

May I ask first: do you speak Tagalog/Filipino? If you do, then be bold and do it yourself. Other people can help clean up the article, and remember: don't use Google Translate. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Barely, that's why the request here... GalingPinas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC).
Something's wrong when you'd use Tropang Potchi as a reference. –HTD 02:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • How is that? Please explain more. Tropang Potchi is the second media entity that approached Circball to feature its game in their show. Published version of their show is unavailable online at this moment but it doesn't mean the source doesn't exist per WP:GNG. However as a verification, see the "Abante" source that confirmed that Tropang Potchi made a coverage of Circball on the date of the show.GalingPinas (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It's like The Maury Show and Jerry Springer Show: these shows rotate their "guests". In any case, that Abante reference (God are we really going to use Abante as a reference now? That's worse than Tropang Potchi. LOL) is only useful in the Tropang Potchi article that they covered circball, not for any article on circball. –HTD 02:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes. Only use Abante as a sub-reference, not as a basis for the whole article. It only confirms that Tropang Potchi did make a detail coverage of Circball and that actual video coverage is not available online but could be available offline thru their TV archives. It's still notable nonetheless because the source exist per WP:GNG, albeit offline. If someone in Pinas can knock at GMA's door and ask for permission to provide this specific TV session then the better. But the source do exist as shown by these behind-the scenes videos, and that makes this article notable enough. GalingPinas (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's Abante, and it's a "sub-reference". That's not GNG. Not everything featured on TV gets an article, as given by my examples on those appearing on Maury and Springer. What's next? A Wikipedia article on Mang Tooths? –HTD 02:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm only referring to Tropang Potchi show covering Circball as being notable per GNG and that was confirmed by this Abante article that Tropang Potchi did indeed covered a feature about Circball. I'm not saying that Abante by itself is notable. You can use Abante however as a confirmation/verification reference to verify the real notable source (Tropang Pochi) which GNG requires. Here's the appropriate guideline in GNG: Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article. WP:NRVE In this case Tropang Potchi published something about Cirball in their show. That published source is offline, however, it's still a reliable source because that how WP notability policy defines it--that a published source exists. Whether that published source is online or offline is not the issue. The published source about Circball by (tropang potchi) is notable enough because significant coverage was made by the show about Circball, confirmed by Abante & confirmed by behind-the scene videos. GalingPinas (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess my point was neither Abante nor Tropang Potchi is a reliable source. Abante is a tabloid, and it didn't even cover the game, it made a passing reference to the Tropang Potchi program airing a feature about the game. Do you even understood what WP:GNG, the page you're linking to means? Abante is nowhere reliable, even if it is, its coverage was not significant. Now Tropang Potchi is not a reliable source either. It's a children's show. Not every featured shown on Tropang Potchi gets to have a Wikipedia article. Otherwise we'd have articles on people who appeared on Maury and Springer.
  • If you'd continue on insisting to use Potchi and Abante as a reference, it won't cut it. –HTD 13:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Have you made some translations yet or are we just making a judgement call already as to the notability of the article? Because if that's the case based on the sources, it is notable, at least for the GMA coverage of the game, whether by Mark Zambrano, Potchi, Saksi, 24 Oras, etc. It was covered and published widely not just in passing in the Philippines. Here's my analysis of the three sources in the article that made this notable:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article..."WP:GNG. Let's discuss in detail these sources and how they meet these 5 criterias for notability purposes.

Source#1=GMANews "Saksi":

  1. "Significant Coverage" = Saksi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about the rules of the game of Circball. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court. It also talked about the moral principles that the game teaches. "Saksi" also mentioned who the founders are of the Circball. Where it originated and what the organizations that are currently using the game. All of these are covered in this article.
  2. "Reliable" - Saksi new coverage is reliable because it came from a major new media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, GMA.
  3. "Sources"- Saksi news coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Journalist by the name of Mark Zambrano and published by his employer-company, GMA Network Inc.
  4. "Independence" = Saksi is independent of Circball and its parent company nor its journalists and reporters have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.
  5. "Presumption" = Saksi's detail coverage of Circball on April 2011 established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#2=Q-TV & GMA's Children Show "Tropang Potchi":

  1. "Significant Coverage" = Tropang Potchi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about what the game is all about. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court and how the game is played, particulary Morality Play. It also talked about how children can learn moral principles that the game teaches. The Children hosts shown on the video interviewed one of the founders of Circball Philippines Club Inc--the organizing entity utilizing Circball games. All of these are covered in the article as well.
  2. "Reliable" - Tropang Potchi coverage is reliable because it came from two major new media companies recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, Q-TV and GMA.
  3. "Sources"- Tropang Potchi's coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Director by the name of Louie Ignacio and his staff.
  4. "Independence" = Tropang Potchi is independent of Circball. Its parent companies nor its directors and staffs have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article. The show was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. The article mentioned that the show will highlight some current innovations in sports in the Philippines that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.
  5. "Presumption" = Tropang Potchi's detail coverage of Circball on August 2011 (shown on TV September 2011) established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#3=UNTV Sports37's Letter of Intent:

  1. "Significant Coverage" = Sports37 (see its own website) covers sports in the Philippines in detail by interviewing sports athletes. It talks about the rules of the sports, where it originated and how the sports are played and what organizations are involved using the game. All of these patterns of coverage of a sport are discussed in the article.
  2. "Reliable" - Sports37 intended coverage is reliable because it comes from a major media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, UNTV.
  3. "Sources"- Sport37's coverage is a secondary source media publication gathered by a professional Director by the name of Rene Leanda and writer/researcher Bernard Mones, per list of staff provided in the letter of intent.
  4. "Independence" = Sports37's parent company UNTV is independent of Circball. Its parent company nor its directors and writers have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.
  5. "Presumption" = Sports37 sports coverage of Circball through its letter of intent establishes the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Another source: The Circball founders and the game was invited by the Committee on Games, Amusement & Sports (Sub-Committee on Sports) by the Senate of the Philippines on April 2011 to do a presentation of the game. It was later discussed in that session how the Senate would support a resolution to recognize Circball as an Authentic Filipino Sport. If that is not notable enough, then I don't know what is. . GalingPinas (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

GMA covered once per segment, per show, the game. Other than that, they forgot about it. Like I said, this is the same with the features in same GMA news programs such as Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho (probably it'll have more "cred" but still not enough anyway, if KMJS covered the game). Same for UNTV37. (What are you smoking? Sports37 exists? What? LOL.) As for the Senate, contact me if they're recognized by the Philippine Olympic Committee and the Philippine Sports Commission already, plus the fact that is covered elsewhere -- as stated under the "Sources" bullet -- "Multiple sources are generally expected... Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Try again if another news org other than GMA covered this multiple times, and not just on a single segment. That's the time it becomes notable. –HTD 17:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes UNTV sports37 exists, as far as I know when they contacted the founders of Circball in October 2011 requesting to do a shoot to feature Circball in their show. Would that count as another source as well? KMJS also contacted Circball in April 2011 after they saw the coverage in Saksi requesting for permission to feature Circball as well. BTW, notability doesn't require multiplicity of coverage in an article creation. Maybe on NPOV issues perhaps multiple sources are required yes. But for article creation per GNG, the fact that it was noticed and published by a reliable source one time established the subject as notable. There's a clear distinction between notability in article creation and notability in NPOV content of existing articles. At this time, since the article is not even created yet, notability for article creation is the criteria. And a reliable source that exists and is verifiable is sufficient for it to be created as an article, or even a mere stub. Read the whole GNG policy please and their related references. Thanks. Also, can you answer my question whether you have already initiated the translation? GalingPinas (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Ugh... where are you getting this article creation stuff? You'd need multiple unique sources for an article. One source isn't enough. KMJS is a GMA program so that'll presumably won't count. Sports37... wait Sports37 really exists? I don't use UNTV37's news services in sourcing articles. I dunno if anyone does. What sports do they cover? Do they cover the PBA? College sports? Pacquiao fights? What?
  • As for WP:COI, it's pretty obvious you're into this circball game. Nobody outside circball nor KMJS knew they had contact.
  • And as for translation, no. Try Wikipilipinas instead. –HTD 18:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This discussion may be relevant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circball. If other news orgs (preferably those in the VHF band or broadsheets) had multiple in-depth coverage of the the game then the article may be recreated. At its current state, no chance. –HTD 18:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's the appropriate GNG guidelines on article creation (please read the whole article about GNG before making a comment):

The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article ... content .... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.WP:NNC

As for COI, you're wrong, when someone does their research to write an article, it doesn't mean they own that article or is "into Circball". Do your own due diligence just like any journalist would do. Call the Circball founders, ask for details information, talk to them, research the subject, then come back here and write the article, instead of just waiting for an article to fall into your lap and then you ask "does it exist?" Google the sport37. Did you even read the article's sports37 reference??Does anybody else want to give this article translation a try? GalingPinas (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I was actually going to suggest WP:N/N, but you're already appealing there. Let's take it there, not here.
As for translation, these guys will surely help. –HTD 19:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Howard, we can't use WikiPilipinas' contents on Wikipedia. :|
I was implying for him to go there. They'd translate the article and won't AFD it. –HTD 03:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
GalingPinas, I'd suggest you put the article up here on mainspace before asking someone to translate it. I'd like to see it hold up against the GNG to determine whether or not it warrants inclusion. However, in the case of the Tagalog Wikipedia, it might work, but we generally use the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines as a benchmark. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The article has been AFDed just very recently. –HTD 03:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
GalingPinas has been blocked for a year. See also these discussions:
This was a bad case of WP:OWN and refusing to understand what's being explained to him. –HTD 04:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
From what it looks like, this is a very distressing case. Sure doesn't match the cases of other "less-desirable" editors from the Philippines, but still distressing nonetheless. --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow, he surely goes all out to defend himself and the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the Circball in the AFD is a sock of his. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is. What worries me now, as I posted on WP:AN/I, is that in a desperate attempt to return to the community's good graces, he/she digs a bigger hole for him/herself. Like 23prootie. In honest-to-goodness interpretation though of what happened here, I honestly think he could be a very valuable editor: something which this community desperately needs. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe so, if he could be made to fully understand the various policies he tried to wikilawyer before everybody instead of expressing their opposite, as DGG et al pointed out. From a personal standpoint, GP even reminded me of other passionate-about-my-article editors I've encountered over the years - even those who went so far as to create fake Miszabot socks and deliberately mess with Tambayan archives. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The article itself looks interesting. Looks like Circball draft has been abandoned by this blocked user. Editors are welcome to adopt/contribute to the article itself for further improvement. I don't think its appropriate to disregard the article itself despite the behavior of the original creator who seem to have a passion on the subject. PinasIto (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
    • For a noob, you do know the abandoned drafts wikiproject, a project I didn't know that existed up to now... –HTD 18:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, GP. God forbid a community ban is in order for you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I checked through the Circball FB page and it seems that it was covered in several morning news programs, as well as 24 Oras. I might have to disagree with Howard now. :P --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of shit is covered in 24 Oras. Remember the grandmother who lost her husband, then someone took a picture of her and it went viral, then they found her husband? Almost same thing here, but unlike the grandmother who might still be remembered by most people, it's a good bet the game isn't remembered by the people who watched the feature on such programs the day after it aired. –HTD 16:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Location map requests

Currently, we have File:Metro Manila location map.svg and File:Philippines location map.svg which are used for Template:Location map Metro Manila and Template:Location map Philippines, respectively. Since Template:Location map Philippines is zoomed too far away, can anyone one come up with location maps for (Northern & Southern) Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao? Those can replace File:Philippines location map.svg on city/municipality infoboxes. –HTD 15:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Delta Motors

I created an article for Delta Motors Corporation, producer of the Mini Cruiser. I would welcome more input. Thanks,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Renato Corona article

Just a heads-up. The article about Renato Corona has been recently vandalized and GMA News created an article about it, saying that the article was vandalized since yesterday and it took four hours to restore the clean version. -WayKurat (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Non-news. The author could have done the vandalism himself just so he can write about it.-- Obsidin Soul 07:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Can someone trace the IP address? --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The first IP attack came from IP address 69.61.14.98, which according to Geolocate, it originated from South Carolina, USA. The second attack (121.54.49.21) came here in the Philippines using Smart as ISP. -WayKurat (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems that the Inquirer wrote about it as well. I wonder if they will come to asking Wikimedia Philippines about this. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day is coming!

Hi guys. Although I'm not in the Philippines right now, I think I can help organize a meet up for January 15, which is Wikipedia Day! Anyone interested in meeting up that Sunday? I can probably join online, but I'll have to make sure I'm available first: as far as I know, I should be. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Malay race

I constantly find this term being used in a lot of articles related to the Philippines written by Filipino contributors. I know this is what we were taught in our schools (that native Filipino ethnicities are "malay"), but the term is seriously scientifically inaccurate. It's the result of late 19th and early 20th century racism and propagated into the education system during the American Commonwealth. The only proper usage for "Malay" should be to refer to the actual Malay people of Malaysia. There is no justification for using it for Filipinos. So please, avoid using it. The correct term for the native populations of the Philippines (and Maritime Southeast Asia, Polynesia, Micronesia, Madagascar, etc.) is Austronesian.-- Obsidin Soul 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

see Models of migration to the Philippines for more details on this matter.--Lenticel (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It should be noted that it doesn't really matter which migration theories are true (whether it's Out-of-Taiwan or the Out-of-SE-Asia model), it still is not accurate to classify Filipinos as belonging to the "Malay race". It would be like labeling the British people a subset of the "Nordic race". The concept of the conveniently neat color-by-numbers races has long since been debunked scientifically. -- Obsidin Soul 09:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Assistance is requested as a new editor is violating an MOS (WP:HEADINGS) and is not responding to requests to talk. The new editor is also violating WP:NOTPROMOTION through attempts to edit as Filipino Americans & List of Filipino Americans in a way to enhance an individual's notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Article spinout proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#Spinout proposal. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiPilipinas license migration

Since March 26, 2011 (apparently), WikiPilipinas (English only, apparently, since WikiFilipino is still GFDL-only) has FINALLY migrated to CC-BY-SA! Finally, content can move freely between the two sites! :D --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good news, but still, not-notable fluff (such as articles about self) will not be tolerated here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There's actually a very interesting discussion about how WikiPilipinas might have violated the GFDL. =)) --Sky Harbor (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, I thought there may be a possibility that stuff butchered by non-PH editors (especially those who poked their faces in any Pinoy Big Brother article for the past couple of years but never even watched one episode; yeah, I'm looking at you, ____, ____, and ____ ___!) could actually have a second chance there. Can you link the violation discussion Sky? --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I invite all Filipino Wikipedians to join the Wikimedia Philippines Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/wikimediaph/. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Matt Monro Jr

I vaguely recall seeing info that attempted to verify that Matt Monro Jr. is popular in the Philippines . A year on, that article has been sent to AfD by someone else - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt Monro Jnr. Can it be rescued? - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, see this. I happened to attend that concert, but don't know anything about it other than from the perpective of an attendee. A few years ago, I met a singer with the stage name of Bobby Soul who was doing a show on Boracay -- he said he was one of the original members of The Platters, and sang like one, but that WP article and other material I see on the web doesn't seem to back that up. I've met another singer living in the philippines who is said to be one of The Miracles. I could probably get back in contact with him if it's useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Philippine Presidential Seal has been deleted in Commons

Hi. Just a heads up. Just recently, the Philippine Presidential seal has been deleted in Commons. The basis is this discussion involving the Vice Presidential flag. According to the discussion, the seal and the flag cannot be considered public domain since it was just created in 2004. -WayKurat (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate our copyright laws for government works. *sigh* -- Obsidin Soul 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
well, we could always use a fair use version here at en.wiki. Yeah, our IP law sucks.--Lenticel (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why it is viewed that way, when it is clear our IP laws, does not permit any government works to be copyrighted. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I can do some archive-digging later, but I know it has to do with the possibility that government may ask for royalties when we use their work. That alone, in Wikimedia Commons' interpretation of things, would mean that the works are not truly free since government is willing to exercise powers reserved to copyrighted works. Commons has traditionally been very restrictive in reading other countries' copyright laws. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm... See Talk:Copyright law of the Philippines#Government copyright -- apparent error in article. The snippet from RA8923 quoted there which says "No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines." does go on with a "However, ..." but that appears to apply specifically to "exploitation of such work for profit". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
That's actually the problem. It's paradoxical. If it's not protected by copyright, how can the government claim control over commercial usage?-- Obsidin Soul 09:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
My dad cited Recto forgers and other such lowlifes as to why most of the government works are copyrighted, although I find his reason rather moot. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
(Indent) quite non-sensical actually, the creators of the copyrightable work is commissioned to do so by the gov't and therefore already paid. Why the need for more dough?--Lenticel (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the original copyright is merely being held by government and they are entitled to enforce the original copyright. Government copyright provisions are extended only to works of the Government of the Philippines: meaning, these should be works created by people who are employed by the Government of the Philippines and are creating such works in their capacity as employees of the Government. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Our copyright laws shouldn't be interpreted differently from that of the United States. In Vicente Amador's (an IP law expert) Copyright Under the Intellectual Property Code:

Under Section 171.11 a "work of the Government of the Philippines" is a work created by an officer or employee of the Philippine Government or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations as part of his regularly prescribed official duties. Although the government does not own any copyright to its works, this does not mean that the government cannot claim any possessory rights against one who takes possession of the copy of said work without its consent.

But in our case, when its for an economic benefit that we should be obtaining government consent. An illustration to this the case of Jack B. Pfeiffer vs Central Intelligence Agency, et. al, by the USCA, District of Columbia Circuit, Aug. 1, 1995.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
That still means then that when we consider the Definition of Free Cultural Works, Philippine government works are still technically under copyright. Why would you have the right to claim possessory rights if you have waived them by declaring that they're not subject to copyright? --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative

What does the community think? And also, for those who are interested, since the German Wikipedia could possibly join the English Wikipedia, should the Philippine Wikipedias join as well? --Sky Harbor (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. - I cast my lot with the Anti-SOPA folks, and would love to see us join the fray. - Alternativity (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the blackout is happening on the English Wikipedia, and I set up a discussion page on the Tagalog Wikipedia to discuss a potential blackout there. Still needs community input though. --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
For some reason i imagined SOPA as if it was the clash in the final scenes of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.--Lenticel (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I really prefer to just put up a banner supporting the cause, but not to the point of interrupting the fledgling Philippine Wikipedias. Though they say, what a difference a day makes, that day could have been an added editing day for the already elusive writers in the local languages. And just a wild idea that came to me, I hope if ever we're faced with the same scenario, they'll shut-off the English site too, considering 90 percent of page views from the Philippines go to the English Wikipedia, though in totality we're just a mere fraction of English WP users. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 12:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A sitenotice (like the one we're seeing right now) would probably suffice should a banner be decided upon. But if the community decides to push through with a blackout should Congress decide to pass similar legislation here, I don't see why they won't allow for a Philippine blackout of the English Wikipedia should there be broad-enough support for it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Banner - I would like to specify my statement of support and say I think a banner is the way to go.We are, however, running out of time. - Alternativity (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
If this is your position, please state so on the projects in question. Should there be enough consensus for a banner, I think the community can come up with something. --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(reset) and we're back :) Anyways, we should have some means to talk with our own legislators as well. Philippine law has a habit of copying US laws out of context. Dunno, talk with the Optical Media Board about alternatives to piracy for the common Filipino?--Lenticel (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The original draft to the Wikimedia Philippines statement on SOPA/PIPA alludes to several bills pending in Congress which pertain to intellectual property and cybercrime, but we cannot jump to conclusions unless we start analyzing those bills. The cybercrime bills seem fine, but it's the bills which seek the Intellectual Property Code which I'm more leery about. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a link to a table/document about the new changes that they want for the IPC?--Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
(Aside) Hm. I dunno if this is the right venue for saying this but if ever we want to get in touch with Congress on these issues, I've had a few chats online with AGHAM Partylist's Angelo Palmones via his FB page. He suggests they're open to scheduling discussions with people who want to suggest legislation. FYI lang. It strikes me that AGHAM and the Wiki community share a lot of common goals. - Alternativity (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I smell a collaboration coming :) --Lenticel (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it might come earlier than I thought: Music, film industries lobby for PH version of SOPA. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
So it begins...--Lenticel (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Philippine Lung Center name

This article should be moved to "Lung Center of the Philippines", which currently serves as a redirect. - Windows72106 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
One of my first stubs. Man I feel old --Lenticel (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Oooh...Efe's back! :D --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back Efe :) --Lenticel (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lenticel and Sky. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur. Welcome back Efe!! :D - Alternativity (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
+1 for Lenticel ;-) --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Philippines will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Philippines's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We could start with Women in the Philippines.--Lenticel (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a great start! It'd also be wonderful to brainstorm subjects about women in the area that haven't been covered, too. Perhaps some inspiration will be found there. Perhaps I can lend a hand at brainstorming some ideas too! I'll keep you posted :) SarahStierch (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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".-- Obsidin 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?-- Obsidin 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. -- Obsidin 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.-- Obsidin 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. -- Obsidin 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)

  1. ^ "Socio- Economic Profile of Lebak" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-07-03.