Talk:Philippines/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Edit request on 28 July 2012

Population needs to be updated, according to the CIA factbook as of July 2011 the population is 103,775,002

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rp.html Ruthlesspno1 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

See previous discussions. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013

"almost three hundred thousand square kilometres (over 186,000 sq mi)" - wrong conversion from sq. km to sq. mi

 Done Fixed. See this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

War crimes in the American invasion of the Philippines

There's a mention of atrocities committed by Japan in WW2, but the American invasion section completely leaves out the brutal violence towards filipino civilians by US forces. It's well detailed in the American-Philippine war article though. For the sake of fairness it should be added in, otherwise this page is giving a very US-biased presentation of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.3.103.164 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Then for the sake of fairness, why not also include atrocities equally committed by Filipinos during those wars/conflicts for that matter: i.e. those equally committed by them during the Philippine Revolution against Spain, the Philippine-American War and during World War II. Not to mention brutal massacres committed by communist rebels against their fellow Filipinos in the history of the country. Indeed, what you're suggesting is a pandora's box. It can have dire consequences for this article and will only distract the reader. It will only result in a pingpong of POVs with each side aggressively pursuing their respective points of view. Furthermore, it proceeds from an erroneous assumption that in all wars or conflicts, only one side commits violence.Thinkinggecko (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the articles in question with this in mind, but I would note that there is no WP policy on WP:FAIRNESS. The WP policy statement most applicable here is probably WP:UNDUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Largest city

Quezon City's area totals 166.20 km2 whereas Davao City's area totals 293.78 km2 (urban). Metro Davao is actually even bigger than NCR as it totals 4,041.39 km2 while Metro Manila is at 638.55 km2. So I'm wondering why does the Philippines page show Quezon City as the country's largest city?

Thanks.

212.183.116.237 (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's based on largest city by population. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Only 3.6% of Filipinos have European blood is false. It's a myth

The "only 3.6%" of Filipinos have European blood clause has been discussed over and over again across various forums in the internet and from reading on the various discussions about it one can gain the following conclusions.

1) The methodology by which they concluded that only 3.6% of Filipinos are European is woefully inaccurate firstly because they only sampled 28 individuals from a single place out of an estimated 98 Million Filipinos. A sample size of 28 to represent a population of 98 Million doesn't even pass the margin of error requirement.

2) The study was not meant to describe the whole genome of a population only the Y chromosomes of a select number of individuals [By which an average of 3.6% European admixture was culled from all the people they sampled ] Even if it were true for those involved in the study it isn't completely true because the mitochondrial and X chromosome genetic materials were summarily ignored.

3) The haphazardly done and minuscule-sampled study conflicts with historical scholarship.

Books written in the Spanish era by Frenchmen and by Spanish census takers themselves record that at least 1/3 of the population of the island of Luzon (The most populous island) had varying degrees of Spanish ancestry [From Tornatras to full Peninsulares] their descendants would thus number among the millions today, a conservative 10-12 million. Yet the 3.6% assumption conflicts with that (Considering that most of the samples were taken in the south not in Luzon)

4) Other genetic findings conflict this. Genetic studies done by members of "23forme" Genome study group yield that 75% of Filipinos possess European genetic markers and the average amount of European genes among the 75% is 4.8% of their total genome (The dilution of European genes among those who possessed it is understandable considering it was Latinos [Who were already mixed with Amerindians] who emigrated en masse to the Philippines not the Spaniards [Research Viceroyalty of New Spain])

Thus, considering this, I would like to request that we either remove the mythological "only 3.6% of Filipino have any European blood" in wikipedia or we update the information according to modern research.

Thank You Very Much.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

King's Image

Please stop removing the image "A king and his Alipin's from the Tanric Period Maharlika caste"! This will be the Second time Ive repost this image please ,Dont remove this ! . Philipandrew (talk) 02:25, 11,October 2013 (UTC)

Stop adding it. Read your talk page.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2013

University of San Carlos is the smeliest existing school in the world (1595-1598) while University of Santo Tomas is the 2nd (1611)

EvePino (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This is already such a large article that adding such fine detail would be undue weight. You may find a place for the information in a more specific article, but before you do so, you need to find reliable sources supporting these claims, and you need to clarify what you're saying, because universities and schools are different things. --Stfg (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate caption of bombardment by "galleons"

A picture in the Spanish colonization section has the description: "Spanish galleons bombarding the Muslims of Mindanao in 1848."

As the imbedded link itself will confirm, galleons fell out of use after the 18th century. By sail plan, the vessels pictured are pretty clearly brigs (and perhaps even hybrid steamers, although it's hard to be sure). In any event, they're certainly not galleons. Drolz⁰⁹ 07:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious & Unreliable source inline tags in Islamic expansion section

I've removed these tags, inserted in this edit. A {{Dubious}} tag needs an explanation on the talk page. It's not clear to me whether the doubt concerns the assertion of the presence of anti-Islamic fervor, enmity between Tantrist, Rajah Humabon and Datu, Lapu-Lapu, or whether LAPU-Lapu was a Muslim convert. My guess is that it concerns the latter, and I see from googling around that there currently appears to be some difference of opinion about that historical detail. There are sources which claim or which imply that he was (e.g., note 34 here). This source, however, says that LL resisted converting. I'm not sure of the reliability of those sources, or of the source cited in the article (which is not previewable online -- so I don't know what it has to say). If the doubt regards the assertion that LL was a Muslim convert, perhaps that assertion can be rewritten to acknowledge the fact that various authors take different positions on that question (with or without citing scholarly works to support their individual positions), per WP:DUE. {{Unreliable source inline}} redirects to {{Verify credibility}}. I am unable to verify the credibility or the lack thereof of the source cited in the article, but it does seem to have been produced by a reputable author. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was the one who cited Lapu-lapu as a muslim convert using pro islamic sources. Thank you I was not aware that there are conflicting opinions over this subject. Since Lapu-lapu's conversion to islam is a contentious issue with many sources saying he converted and also many other sources which say he didn't then I think it just best to remove my insertion concerning datu lapu lapu and his conversion to Islam. Since it is ambiguous. I myself will remove it if it needs to be. Thank you for the clarification.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, some sources claim: such as this one: "http://tlc.library.usc.edu.ph/TLCScripts/interpac.dll?LabelDisplay&Config=SAMPLE&Branch=,0,&FormId=189846259&RecordNumber=206981" that Lapu lapu was indeed a Muslim and he even had many wives and a portion of his family were half-arabs. And the Tausugs of Sulu also claim that Lapu-lapu was a Muslim... Although, I do lean in the direction of my insertions to be deleted, I think we should also consider these two factors.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not expert about the point at issue, and don't have a strong opinion either way. My feelings relate to WP:DUE, and I read that to say essentially that if the question has sufficient weight in relation to the article topic that all significant points of view should be mentioned. Mentioning this small point in a wide-ranging article about the Philippines probably gives it undue weight. It might have sufficient weight to be mentioned in an article such as Religion in the Philippines or Islam in the Philippines (neither of which currently mention Lapu Lapu), or in Lapu Lapu (where the Religion section currently does mention it and cites a couple of supporting sources). The source you mention above isn't viewable online, and I have not looked at it. Googling around, though, I did find [1], [2] (note 34 there), [3], [4] (which says that Lapu Lapu resisted converting to Islam), [5] (which says that he is recognized in the southern Philippines as a Muslim hero, a figure of Islamic resistance to the Catholic Spanish). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Lapu-lapu's conversion to islam should belong to another article about religion and the main Philippines article shouldn't mention it, considering the contentiousness of it all. Thank you for informing us about this discrepancy.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge "Indic epoch" and "Islamic expansion" to broader "Pre-colonial history" and other proposals

...and to re-merge the American and Japanese sections.

First it should be known that the American and Japanese occupational period has been one section for years, and only recently had someone separated them. A separate "Japanese occuption" section is simply too short of a section relative to the others to stand on its own. It would look a lot cleaner if it was re-merged, not to mention Japanese occuption was in reality just a brief interruption lasting a few years, of the much greater and longer American influence on the islands.

To the more major proposal for merging and renaming the "Indic" and "Islamic" sections: Both of them are relatively brief sections. The Philippine islands were fragmented with different societies, and had never been a unified state prior to Spanish colonization. The re-naming would be more accurate and address this reality. I would at least re-merge the Japanese and American sections as the rationale is very simple and logical: the Japanese section is far too short to stand on its own.

Also, and likely of sufficient weight to add a mention in the re-merged sections, the Commonwealth government maintained a government in exile during the occupation, which was restored to power on February 27, 1945.[6] (some months before Japan's formal surrender on September 2, 1945.) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

We'll, considering that the British era was subsumed under the Hispanic period, I'm guessing its also reasonable for the Japanese occupation to be subsumed under American colonialism. Remerging the two sections is not only practical, its already there in the form of the British era subsumed under the Hispanic period. Extending it to the Japanese occupation is totally reasonable. And as Wmitchell stated, the exiled Commonwealth government should also be mentioned.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Addition

I have only arrived at this article recently. After some digging through the revision history, it should be noted that the current state of the History section is a result of a lot of unilateral changes and expansion by User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw over the past year. Even as far back as 2010 there were already complaints about Gintong's significant expansion and changes in the History section.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw's edits threaten this article's Good status by adding a lot of new details (some not totally verified) and destabilizing it through constant changes. As recently as May 2013 it had been reverted to a much shorter History section with no subsections only to be expanded once again. While I am not opposed to expanding it and I certainly do not question Gintong's good faith, I feel there needs to be a limit to conform to WP:SUMMARY and that too much detail especially has been added to the last two history sections, falling under WP:RECENTISM bias and should thus be shortened. I propose a substantial contraction of the information currently under "Cold War era" and "Contemporary history" under a shorter "Independence" section by removing the least salient/neccessary details that ought to be left to a dedicated article such as History of the Philippines. Some trimming in the Spanish colonization section may also be in order.

I do not propose a full revert back to the History section of May 2013, but we need to get the section back to a stable, relatively static, and most of all good quality state, or else I fear what will happen the next time a Good article status review comes. Cadiomals (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm we'll I think that compressing and putting into three divisions the myriad periods into a "Classical Period, Colonial Era and Contemporary/Independence" is a good idea since it would be easier on the eyes. However, the reason why I helped made the subsection as it is, is due to the fact that these eras are what it is reflected in standard history textbooks. To prove this scenario let me show you the multi-volume "The Pageant of Philippine History by Gregorio F. Zaide" and "History of the Filipino People by Teodoro Agoncillo". In the books therein; the Japanese era was separate from the American era and the Islamic period was also another separate division.

We'll I am not opposed to any innovation if consensus says that a new system replace the current system if it is found to be too cumbersome. My primary purpose is mainly that the current history section reflects that as outlined in textbooks or sources about Philippine history. If change is adjudged to be necessary then go ahead. As long its reasonable.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In Addition... Actually, I was the one who originally put the neat Classical, Colonial and Contemporary periods (Akin to your thoughts) sort of grouping in this article, however it mainly due to the initiative of other editors mainly Miguel Raul and Theparties (Not ME) who showed me the conventional textbook delimitations into Spanish, American, Japanese and etc. eras (Sonia Zaide even placed a "British Era" in her textbook "Philippines A Unique Nation") that made me ignore the progressive deviations away from my original and neat: Classical, Colonial and Contemporary periods into the serialized version we have now. I am not the only editor here, this version has been stamped with approval of the silent majority in that users such as "Miguelraul", "Wtmitchell", "Theparties" and "Obsidian Soul" have progressively built up until this current version. Some of them even dissapproves of merging the Japanese and American into one era as per the reaction of "Theparties" in the log of 10:09, 29 January 2014‎ wherein he complained "The title for this section is just TOO LOOOOOOOOOOONG. Please consider this!". I dont know for anyone here. I'm just going to follow the whims of the majority as long as it is just and reasonable.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you are compliant with the planned changes as I thought you would be opposed to them. I was also wrong in pinning all the recent changes on you as it is obvious from the Revision history that users like User:Theparties contributed greatly to the section's destabilization and unnecessary expansion. Once again, I am not questioning the good faith of these editors, but they are misguided in thinking expanding the section will improve the article. In reality the amount of detail currently present in the "Cold War" and "Contemporary" sections is not only much longer than preceding sections but unnecessary for this country article according to WP:SUMMARY and in violation of WP:RECENTISM for its extensive detailing of only fairly recent events. The biggest problem is a Good article reviewer coming along and deciding to revoke the status due to this. The most significant events that will be kept in is summary info on the dictatorship of Marcos, the People Power revolution, and a few sentences on events since the 1990s, all under a much shorter "Independence" section, as well as combining the "Indic" and "Islamic" sections into "Pre-colonial history" or "Pre-colonial states". Any further detail is the reason the main articles are linked and the reason History of the Philippines exists. I will wait a day or two if others want to contribute their input before going ahead with the changes. After that I will be keeping this article on my watchlist to make sure no one attempts another unnecessary expansion of the section. Cadiomals (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Cadiomals, I have four issues with your suggestions:

1. The title for the subsection "American period and Japanese occupation" is just too long in relation to the other titles for the other subsections. Its sheer length lengthens the width of the table of contents to a kilometer in contrast to its original appearance of only 12 inches. This is just aesthetically displeasing and gives undue weight to that particular section. There are two solutions that I could suggest. Either split it into two or simply drop the "Japanese" reference and simply name it "American period" as it originally was. I prefer the latter and I am going to edit it that way right now.
2. The debate whether to use "Spanish" over "Hispanic" is much ado about nothing although I would much prefer using the word "Hispanic" given that it is more inclusive; that there was a period in the history of Spain where it was in union with Portugal, known as the Iberian Union, in which both countries controlled the possessions and colonies of each state equally; and that the nationality of Ferdinand Magellan, one of the progenitors of of the Spanish Empire, is Portuguese.
3. I disagree with the proposed merger of the "Prehistory", "Indic", and "Islamic" subsections. Because the lack of information about those periods in contrast to the abundance about the "Hispanic", "American", and Current history subsections does not make those period less relevant nor important that they be swept into a single box. If you look at the histories of Cambodia, Iraq, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates; the "History" subsections of those countries are similar to this one.
4. I also disagree in the merger of the "Cold War" and "Contemporary" subsections into one titled "Independence". It would be an ill decision to do so because the definition of "Independence" for this country is controversial and referencing it would be adding fuel to the fire. Another reason why I disagree is the fact that much of the era when this country is known as the "Philippines" refers to that period. Simply compressing it would be contradictory since it is supposed to be the most relevant.--Theparties (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what Theparties say, because this status quo has been progressively approved by the silent majority via perennial and consensual build-up. Nevertheless, to be fair to Cadionomials, we should also consider his proposals. I propose that we keep the current serialized version of the sections as it is the standard, but in due respect to Cadionomials legitimate complaint that it is too long, we should compress the information contained within, especially the Contemporary and Cold War eras. Is this compromise reasonable to both of you? Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What "status quo"? The status quo has actually always been to keep a brief, summary-style history section, and for years there were no subheadings. You and User:Theparties are the ones who re-introduced subheadings months ago and went ahead with unnecessarily expanding content. You did it in good faith (and I would not have been entirely opposed to adding a little more detail and splitting it up a little) but you are misguided in thinking it will improve the article because it does not abide by WP:SUMMARY. There should be no more than five broad & brief section subheadings: Prehistory, Pre-colonial, Spanish colonial, American, and Independence (with names roughly similar to those) as opposed to the eight that Theparties desires. I am also not as concerned with naming and semantics; using "Spanish" or "Hispanic" makes little difference though the former is still more accurate because no Portuguese ever colonized those islands. The other name can simply be shortened to "American period" or changed to "American period and World War II" as all sources show that Japanese occupation was simply a brief interruption of American rule and a separate "Japanese occupation" section is too short.

But I am mostly concerned with the actual recent expansion of content, especially in the last two sections, and the need for contraction. Just because no one noticed or no one cared enough to stop what was being done doesn't mean there was a "silent majority" supporting the unnecessary changes, and now I have at least two other people agreeing with me. The contraction of the last two subsections under an "Independence" section would be as simple as returning it to this state, a day before Theparties chose to expand and split it. The country was declared nominally independent from US rule in 1946 and that's that. Also, that section is no more relevant than the others just because it is most recent. Thinking it is, and thus believing it deserves more treatment, violates WP:RECENTISM. As I said before I am mostly concerned with this article's long-run retention of Good status due to the developments over only the past few months and its current violation of the policies listed above, and I would rather fix the obvious problems now than to wait for a reviewer to come along and inform us that these problems need to be fixed. If Good status is revoked because of Theparties' non-compliance the blame will be squarely on his shoulders. I don't consider myself the one making changes, I am simply trying to return the section to the quality state it was in several months before, and roughly the state it was in when it was first awarded Good status. Cadiomals (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree we should keep the current oversplit section where some paragraphs have their own section header. The issues over subsection titles are irrelevant, as we shouldn't have so many in the first place. This article is meant to be a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article. The aim of the section should be to give a quick digestible overview, not delve into the details. We have History of the Philippines, which could use the time an enthusiasm currently going into here. It's not just History either; the table of contents for this article now stretches the entirety of my computer screen. This article should be restructured in light of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Compare for example, the long-established and very stable FA Indonesia. CMD (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping it into a single History section without any subsections as long as it fixes the Table of Contents. I'm also in favor of Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw's proposal of compressing the recent history as long as a significant fraction is retained.--Theparties (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't saying we should totally revert it back to the single History section it was a year ago, as that would involve an immense reduction of information, which would also contradict your saying "as long as a significant fraction is retained." The last two sections need to be cut by at least one-third and combined into one, as they have the most excessive info per WP:RECENTISM. As a compromise, I won't totally replace it with just the Independence section from May 2013 (before you split and expanded it), a little more detail that was added since then can be left in. Meanwhile the two smaller sections before Spanish colonization can easily be combined without cutting any info. If you don't want "American period and Japanese occuption" we can only shorten it to "American period". Naming is trivial as it has no effect on the information in the body; readers will still learn about the brief interruption of Japanese occupation. Always remember that the purpose of country articles, as CMD said, is to provide relatively brief, easily digestible summary info on all aspects of the country. Many details are not necessary for this article and are left for dedicated articles like History of the Philippines. In any case the section is in definite need of streamlining, to make 1) section headers consistent and 2) each section be of similar size to show that each aspect of history is given its fair and due weight. As long as you can agree with/accept this I will go ahead with the general changes and we can discuss/implement tweaks after. Cadiomals (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you already agreed on cutting the American and Japanese section into just American I'm going to do that now. I disagree that the post-World War II history should be cut to a third and merged. The two periods are distinct enough to have their own sections. Besides, the most significant aspect of this article, the Constitution of the Philippines delineates both eras. Some would argue Philippine independence only came in 1986. Combining the two would reduce focus on both vis-a-vis their relevance. Also, the length of the American period (48 years) is more or less equal to the length of the Cold War era (40 years). I reject the Recentism argument in favor of Undue Weight.--Theparties (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're interpreting the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT guidelines, because I would use them to support my arguments against yours. The last two sections give undue weight to recent events, simultaneously violating WP:RECENTISM. At this point I could probably compromise by keeping the two sections separate, but they still absolutely must be shortened, about a paragraph cut from both, and Contemporary history should be the shortest section by far, as there are a ton of unnecessary details there listing the most recent scandals, disasters, and laws of just the past 20 years; only the most impactful ones should be kept. Cadiomals (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Theparties: -- I don't know why you would just decide to dramatically shorten the American section when it is probably one of the sections least in need of trimming. Meanwhile, you made very few trimmings to the last two sections such that they look barely smaller. I don't know what your mindset is, but I will propose the changes needed for the Cold War and Contemporary history sections by placing the paragraphs here and bolding the info that will be removed. Then as long as there are no major objections I will go ahead with them, as I am the one who proposed the needed changes in the first place. As I said before I will be modeling the removals to make it look like they did in May 2013 while leaving enough detail to keep the two sections separate. Cadiomals (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

all sections are currently in drastic need of trimming and if you look with what I removed from the American section, much of it is trivia. You were the one who proposed cutting bits from the history section, I am only obliging.--Theparties (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of sentences can be trimmed from the Spanish and American sentences, but not to the extent that the American section is one small paragraph. Below I have laid out simply what the last two sections will look like after trimmings (more convenient than bolding removals). The Cold War section is basically what it looked like in May 2013, while the Contemporary history has some added details. Cadiomals (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

@Theparties: -- PS -- It would be really appreciated if you didn't label all your edits as "Minor" when they so obviously are not. "Minor" edits are only for copy-editing or barely noticeable changes. Please brush up on guidelines. Cadiomals (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes

Cold War era

On July 4, 1946, the Philippines attained its independence.[5] Immediately after World War II, the Philippines faced a number of challenges. The country had to be rebuilt from the ravages of war. It also had to come to terms with Japanese collaborators. Meanwhile, disgruntled remnants of the Hukbalahap communist rebel army that had previously fought against and resisted the Japanese continued to roam the rural regions. This threat to the government was dealt with by Secretary of National Defense and later President Ramon Magsaysay, but sporadic cases of communist insurgency continued to flare up long afterward.[61][62] In 1965, Ferdinand Marcos was elected president. Nearing the end of his second term and constitutionally barred from seeking a third, he declared martial law on September 21, 1972. By using political divisions, the tension of the Cold War, and the specter of communist rebellion and Islamic insurgency as justifications, he governed by decree.[63]

On August 21, 1983, Marcos' chief rival opposition leader Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. ignored warnings and returned from exile in the United States. He was assassinated as he was taken off the plane at the Manila International Airport (now called the Ninoy Aquino International Airport in his memory). With political pressure building, Marcos eventually called for snap presidential elections in 1986.[61] Corazon Aquino, Benigno's widow, was persuaded to become the presidential candidate and standard bearer of the opposition. The elections were widely considered rigged when Marcos was proclaimed the winner. This led to the People Power Revolution, instigated when two long-time Marcos allies – Armed Forces of the Philippines Vice Chief-of-Staff Fidel V. Ramos and Secretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile – resigned and barricaded themselves in Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame. Exhorted by the Cardinal Archbishop of Manila Jaime Sin, people gathered in support of the rebel leaders and protested on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). In the face of mass protests and military defections, Marcos and his allies fled to Hawaii and into exile. Corazon Aquino was recognized as president.[62][64]

Contemporary history

The return of democracy and government reforms after the events of 1986 were hampered by national debt, government corruption, coup attempts, a persistent communist insurgency, and military conflict with Islamic separatists, as well as a number of disasters. The economy improved during the administration of Fidel V. Ramos, who was elected president in 1992.[65] However, the economic improvements were negated with the onset of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In 2001, amid charges of corruption and a stalled impeachment process, Ramos' successor Joseph Estrada was ousted from the presidency by the 2001 EDSA Revolution and replaced by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Her administration that lasted 9 years was also tied with graft and corruption and numerous political scandals, though the economy experienced stable growth and managed to avoid the Great Recession.[66][67][68] As a result of the May 2010 elections, Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III was elected president. He promised to reduce corruption and increase spending on infrastructure and other public works projects. During his term, the economy grew by an average annual rate of 6% and a peace process was initiated with the Bangsamoro.

Disagree

The changes I made for the Cold War is much more condensed with what you did. I also made an effort in mentioning each president even just a footnote. See below:

Cold War era

On October 24, 1945,[69] the Philippines became one of the founding members of the United Nations and the following year, on July 4, 1946, it became recognized by the United States as independent, during the presidency of Manuel Roxas.[5] Disgruntled remnants of the Hukbalahap,[70] resisted and continued to roam the countryside but was dealt with by Elpidio Quirino's successor Ramon Magsaysay,[66][71][72][73] Carlos P. Garcia initiated the Filipino First Policy.[74] Diosdado Macapagal continued these policies with celebration of Independence Day moved from July 4 to June 12, the date of Emilio Aguinaldo' declaration,[75][76][77][78] while furthering the claim on North Borneo.[79][80][81][82][83][84]

In 1965, Macapagal lost to Ferdinand Marcos, who was elected president who later declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972. Marcos nationalized the economy while he took full control of the media, marking his rule through the torture, disappearance, and execution of his political enemies while his wife, Imelda Marcos, lived a lavish lifestyle with trips to Paris and New York City, acquiring property and artwork, such as those of Michaelangelo and Claude Monet.[85] The Filipino people lived in poverty.[86] On August 21, 1983, Marcos' chief rival opposition leader Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. was assassinated at the Manila International Airport. Marcos eventually called for snap presidential elections in 1986 against Corazon Aquino, Benigno's widow.[72] Marcos was proclaimed the winner leading to the People Power Revolution causing Marcos and his allies to flee to Hawaii into exile. Corazon Aquino was recognized as president.[73][87]

I do not agree with these exact changes as they are riddled with poor grammar, unencyclopedic language, and they are incoherent and don't read well. It looks as though you just made haphazard removals without thinking about how the sentences tie together to create a coherent chronology. I can make the changes while trimming out a couple more sentences so it looks as short as yours, except the sentences will actually be cohesive. Please leave these changes to a more responsible and thoughtful editor. Cadiomals (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to wait for Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw to comment before I even agree with any of suggestion. Your are completely contributing to the instability of this article and the consensus established in the last six months.--Theparties (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, we will wait for further input, and meanwhile you should also not attempt any more changes to the History section. I am most certainly not the one contributing to this instability. There was no "consensus" built over the past six months, you and Gintong made unnecessary, undiscussed expansions to the History section after the article had been awarded with a Good status, and simply no one cared enough to notice that your expansions were not healthy for this article. I am the first person to come along who cares about this article retaining its Good status and trying to get the History section back to the healthy, quality state it was in several months ago, while keeping it stable and static in the future, with no further expansions. One of the biggest criteria for Good articles is giving due weight to each topic while not getting into too much detail on any topics, something which is currently a problem for the last two sections of History, a problem caused entirely by your expansions. After this is all over, the article in general should remain relatively stable as it had already been labeled Good with its current content, and the only things that should be changed are updates to reflect the most recent events and statistics, but anything more major than that threatens the article's status and requires discussion for consensus. Cadiomals (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Contemporay history

This one is a bit problematic and I need a little more time in trimming it.--Theparties (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This section is not problematic at all, it's a matter of getting it to how it looked in May 2013 with some added details, it was very easy for me, just look above. You are not the only person entitled to make changes, when you are the one who created this problem in the first place when you decided to massively expand these sections! Cadiomals (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Pinatubo eruption is worth mentioning since the photo is used in the article.---Theparties (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I will add a mention of that. Cadiomals (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The US withdrawal should also be mentioned because that give it much more historicity.--Theparties (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• The edits that I made are the same as what you did but the minor details are added.

The return of democracy and government reforms after the events of 1986 were hampered by national debt, government corruption, coup attempts, a persistent communist insurgency,[88] and military conflict with Islamic separatists.[89] Aquino's administration faced numerous challenges and disasters, including a series of coups, a massacre,[90][91] an earthquake,[92][93] and a shipping disaster.[94][95] Her rule ended with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo,[96][97] leading to the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Subic Bay and Clark Air Base.

haven't you been reading the discussion above? this is wrong.

The economy improved during the administration of Fidel V. Ramos with a peace deal being signed with the Moro National Liberation Front.[98] However, these were negated by Chinese encroachment unto Mischief Reef,[99] along with the onset of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997.[100][101][102][103][104][105] In 2001, amid an ongoing conflict with the Abu Sayyaf,[106] a rebellion by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front,[107] charges of corruption, and a stalled impeachment process, Ramos' successor Joseph Estrada was ousted from the presidency by the 2001 EDSA Revolution and replaced by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.[108] The economy grew at around 5% during her time and the country was able to avoid the Great Recession. Regardless, her administration was tied to graft and corruption, human rights abuses, and numerous political scandals.[109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118] On November 23, 2009, the Maguindanao massacre occurred.[119][120] As a result of the May 2010 elections, Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino II was elected president. During his term, the economy grew by an average annual rate of 6% and a peace process was initiated with the Bangsamoro.[121] Meanwhile, territorial disputes in the South China Sea,[122][123] and also in Sabah, escalated.[124][125][126][127][128][129][130][130][131] Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) struck in 2013.[132] devastating much of the Eastern and Western Visayas.

I forgot to add Typhoon Haiyan, that was my mistake and I will add it. But these changes would involve leaving the myriad excessive citations which is not needed, therefore my changes which are basically the same are superior because they leave only the most pertinent sources. Territorial disputes are also petty and not salient enough for this summary section; it can be found in the main articles. Cadiomals (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Territorial disputes are not as petty as you think given that it has been the focus of the national government in much of the five years. I am not against the removal of sources not mentioned in the article but i just left them there if in case they were to be re-added to the article.--Theparties (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

American period

I've expanded focus on Quezon while trimming of mention of the artists/writers. I would appreciate it if you look at the changes before reverting the.--Theparties (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You can present your proposed changes here, and we will implement them after we implement the changes for the last two sections, you made so many unilateral undiscussed edits at once it's time consuming checking over all of them. Cadiomals (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The country was ceded by Spain to the United States for 20 million US dollars in the 1898 Treaty of Paris.[57] The the United States did not recognize the First Philippine Republic and the Philippine–American War then broke out, ending with the defeat of the First Philippine Republic. However, it was superseded by three republics: The Republic of Zamboanga, The Republic of Negros and The Tagalog Republic. These too were defeated, and the archipelago was administered under an Insular Government.[58] The Moro Rebellion immediately followed which was mostly fought against the Sultanate of Sulu.[59] During this era, a renaissance in Philippine culture occurred, with the expansion of Philippine cinema and literature.[60][61][62][63] Daniel Burnham built an architectural plan for Manila which would have transformed it into a modern city.[64] In 1935, the Philippines was granted Commonwealth status with Manuel Quezon as President. He designated a national language,[65] introduced women's suffrage, and land reform.[66] Plans for independence over the next decade were interrupted by World War II when the Japanese Empire invaded and the Second Philippine Republic was established as a collaborator state. Many atrocities and war crimes were committed during the war such as the Bataan Death March and the Manila massacre that culminated during the Battle of Manila.[67] Allied troops defeated the Japanese in 1945. Quezon died in exile in the United States and Sergio Osmeña succeded him. By the end of the war it is estimated over a million Filipinos had died.[68]

--Theparties (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with these changes, except the wording (which you tweaked ever so slightly) should largely be retained as it reads better, and the single paragraph will look large within the article itself, so it should be split in two with the second paragraoh starting with "In 1935..." Otherwise this is pretty much how it looked some months ago.

You made too many undiscussed edits at once for it to be worthwhile looking over all them to see which ones were "okay". No matter what, they should have been presented here before going through with them. This whole time I have respected the discussion process and have not made any major unilateral changes without consulting Talk, and I expect a respectable editor to do the same. Cadiomals (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We'll, I agree with the changes proposed. Its rational but except for a few grammatical inconsistencies and lack of flow. Its pretty much agreeable. If we have been changing the paragraphs these past few months, it would only be fair if we also let others contribute. :D

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Redo

I'm adding my trimmed Cold War Section below. Fell free to edit it.--Theparties (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cold War era

On October 24, 1945, the Philippines became one of the founding members of the United Nations and the following year, on July 4, 1946, it became recognized by the United States as independent, during the presidency of Manuel Roxas. Disgruntled remnants of the communist Hukbalahap, resisted and continued to roam the countryside but was dealt with by Elpidio Quirino's successor Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia initiated the Filipino First Policy. Diosdado Macapagal continued these policies with celebration of Independence Day moved from July 4 to June 12, the date of Emilio Aguinaldo' declaration, while furthering the claim on North Borneo.

In 1965, Macapagal lost to Ferdinand Marcos, who was elected president who later declared Martial Law on September 21, 1972. Marcos nationalized the economy while he took full control of the media, marking his rule through the torture, disappearance, and execution of his political enemies while his wife, Imelda Marcos, lived a lavish lifestyle with trips to Paris and New York City, acquiring property and artwork, such as those of Michaelangelo and Claude Monet. The Filipino people lived in poverty. On August 21, 1983, Marcos' chief rival opposition leader Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. was assassinated at the Manila International Airport. Marcos eventually called for snap presidential elections in 1986 against Corazon Aquino, Benigno's widow. Marcos was proclaimed the winner leading to the People Power Revolution causing Marcos and his allies to flee to Hawaii into exile. Corazon Aquino was recognized as president.

It's a good edition! Just add the adjective "communist" before Hukbalahap (Because they were the precursor of the communist insurgency in the Philippines) and this article would be a-ok. :D

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. I'm going to add this now.--Theparties (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please wait, I will do the Contemp. history section... as well as a few tweaks/additions to Cold War history. Cadiomals (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading what you made. I'm fine with the changes. The gist is still there so okay.--Theparties (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Because I highly doubt anyone would object to the minor changes, I went ahead and made some to the Spanish colonization section. I removed the Spanish ships painting because it mostly just shows a grey sky with the actual ships being very small; as a result, it contributes little educational value to the article and just takes up cramped space. Accordingly I separated the double image and put them on opposite ends. It's understandable that the Spanish section would be longer since it is a nearly 400 year period, but I also made tweaks and removed a couple of the least significant details and merged two paragraphs, so the section overall looks a lot more neat.

I will also make minor tweaks to the Cold War section for greater accuracy and readability. For example, there is no evidence or sourcing that states Marcos nationalized any aspect of the economy, so this is an inaccurate statement that will be removed/modified. There are also a few minor grammatical and syntactical errors that I will fix (it is important to edit thoughtfully and not haphazardly)m meanwhile removing the excess of useless sources that often don't directly pertain to the subjects and are probably just left over from the shortening. The section will look largely the same.

After this the streamlining of the History section will be largely complete, and in the future further expansions should be discouraged as its current state is of good quality and satisfactory. Cadiomals (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Using info from the Data Philippines template

In this edit, I've replaced some infobox parameter values with figures taken from or calculated from {{Data Philippines}}. The new figures differ from the old figures. Let's discuss here if needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

People Power photo

I have an issue with having a non-free image in the article (considering I was the one who put it there. I'm, starting to think that wasn't a wise decision). I don't think that this article would survive a good article review as long as it stays here. I would much rather have an image of lesser quality that is free.--Theparties (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Below is Good article criteria #6 copy-pasted:

"6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions."

As you can see, there is absolutely no reason the EDSA photo can't be used in this article. Non-free images can be used as long as there is a valid fair use rationale and it has very limited use and high contextual significance per WP:NFCC. I let you go with replacing the Manuel Quezon image, but not this one because the image you replaced in Cold War is of much less educational value than EDSA and not for a good reason at all. If the image truly did not have a valid fair use rationale and was not fit to be used in just a few articles it would have been deleted already. If a Good article reviewer really objects to the image, they will be sure to let as know, (as well as providing a list of other issues) and would give us time to fix it before revoking the status. Not to mention that you chose a very weak picture when there are many free images out there of Ferdinand Marcos, who was arguably the more influential figure of that era, as well as a previous image that used to exist, of the Philippine flag being raised in an independence ceremony:

We could use either one of these images or it is just as valid to keep the EDSA one. Honestly I wouldn't want to use the Marcos image because we already have two photos in that section of political leaders. But I think of all of these the EDSA image is most educational as the only one that shows the degree of public dissatisfaction with Marcos' dictatorship. If this is your only reasoning for replacing the image you don't have to worry anymore and I'm begging you to stop making issues where there are none. Cadiomals (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen on wikipedia, using a Non-free image on the article of a country would be very highly frowned upon. They're meant to be used only when they provide critical understanding that would be otherwise lost. Considering this is such a massive overview article, covering a huge amount of information (think how many subpages fit under this article), there is no reason to use a non-free photo here. A Marcos photo would be a good one, given his stature in recent history. CMD (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think this image satisfies most of the concerns raised above.--Theparties (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a tolerable enough compromise, at least more educational than the Aquino replacement. Still, there are now three portraits of people in just the history section alone, four if you include the paintings; far more than is normal for any history section. To me showing actual events that shaped history is of equal importance, if not more important, than just showing portraits of people who shaped history. Ugh. Are you done with the History section, User:Theparties? I see no reason a section on unchangeable past events should be modified any further at this point. But if you have any future plans for it you should get them out in the open in Talk now so we can be finished. This section at least should be settling into a stable, static state by now as we have already done plenty of condensing and streamlining to it. Cadiomals (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There's too many photos because the desire to subtitle everything leads to the desire to add a picture to each subsection, despite the subsections being far too short for each to have one. CMD (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I'm not the one who expanded the history section of course, and I remember over a year ago it had no subheadings at all and was just continuous, but we're way too far along at this point to turn that far back and make such a huge contraction of information. Secondly, I wasn't saying there were too many pictures, I was saying there were too many portraits of just people as a proportion of the total # of pictures in the section, and not enough pictures of actual events like the EDSA image {which still made no clear-cut violation of the rules). Otherwise, I think the balance and arrangement of images in that section actually flows well and looks nice, and the subsections aren't so short that the images are packed together. I had already removed one picture from the Spanish section (there were originally 3) and I do think the Tabon Caves photo could be removed, especially since it is awkwardly positioned due to the infobox above it and is probably the least valuable. If no one disagrees, that should probably be done. That will still leave 4 images of people and 1 of a building, and none showing important events. Cadiomals (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing a couple of subheadings is not a contraction of information. There's no reason we can't further discuss concision, but that's not what I'm advocating at this moment. Subheaders doesn't affect the amount of information at all, and images don't really either. The Spanish section definitely needs one picture max, and the Palawan picture is being pushed down by the infobox. We should probably remove the Palawan one actually, it doesn't provide any historical information. CMD (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will go ahead and do that. Oh, and the reason the Spanish section has two images is because it's twice as long as any other section, and at least it was cut down from three and there is no overcrowding. I'm more worried about the content of the images at this point. Cadiomals (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• On another note, Theparties, I ask/demand that you stop labeling all your edits as minor. Minor edits are reserved specifically for superficial changes that could never be disputed. You are breaking a serious rule as there are many editors who have their watchlists set to ignore minor edits (I am not one of them). User:Chipmunkdavis, back me up on this please. Cadiomals (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm good with what you did.--Theparties (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

FA?

User:TheParties, did you intend to nominate this for FA? Surely we should figure out everything on this talkpage first? One requirement for FA is stability, which this doesn't have considering the large changes over the past few months. CMD (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• The nomination would be helpful on determining what things are still needed to be worked on.--Theparties (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominations aren't meant to be used to determine what things need to be worked on, they are meant to be for articles that are as far as the authors can tell completely ready. Outside views are found at WP:Peer review. CMD (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• For the most part, the article is stable and complete. Only the History section is problematic.--Theparties (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Streamlining and correction of grammatical errors accomplished

Since this article is under review for featured article status, we need to further streamline and correct the grammatical errors of this article as well as update the information to the 2014 version.

Although, the works of theparties, chipunkmunkdavies and cadiomals in reforming this article is respectable, more effort is needed, i.e: convert some sentences written in the first person point of view into the objective 3rd person, shortening unnecessary phrases, deleting run on sentences and be up to date.

With the editors' blessing I will edit it to these specs, without changing the essence or the info of what is written, i'll only be changing the presentation to conform to grammar rules. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You can compare the new version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=863944928

With the old version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=863745909

Actually, there is very little difference I only removed basic words such as run on sentences and etc. to make it look more professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We are not aiming for featured status, no one ever agreed to that, only TheParties brought it up. But no, the article does not fit the proper criteria to be considered the best of the best. Featured articles are supposed to be impeccable, and a simple tweaking of words like you did to the History section is not enough to get us there. Some of the sources here are even no longer working while some info has been added that remains unsourced. I'm more concerned about maintaining the current Good status for the long run, which is already hard enough to achieve and maintain. Cadiomals (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Flag of the Philippines

Should there be a section including the flag? It is a pretty interesting and noteworthy one Reedman72 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What would this convey to readers about the Philippines itself? CMD (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an article for that called Flag of the Philippines, and it is already linked in this article within the infobox. This article is about the Philippines itself, not its flags and other emblems. Cadiomals (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Our problem is our broken links (Not Our Content)

After the candidacy review for this article's upgrade to feature status...

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Philippines/archive2&redirect=no

The review team's main gripe was found out, not to be the content of this article, but rather the links and sources or the lack of it. I guess that in order to improve this article, we should clean up the reference section.

We could start by replacing the dead links pointed out here...

https://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cache/wikipedia:en:Philippines#view=0,0,0,0,1,1

We should listen to their constructive criticism and improve upon our article. Thank You. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos

After trimming the article, I found out that there was too many photos in the History sections so I decided to trim so out. I don't think this act takes anything over the encyclopedic value of the article.--Theparties (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed some more.--Theparties (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Major clean-up

If anyone is asking, I am cleaning this article since I plan to renominate it for Featured Status.--Theparties (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

How can it be that in a major clean-up (your words) with so far more than 30 edits today, all the edits are marked as minor. Just one point from WP:Minor: "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text." Could you please explain why you insist on showing poor Wiki-etiquette just after you have been reminded about WP:Minor (and not for the first time). --T*U (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, and I have informed him about this more than once but every time he has ignored. I don't know how such behavior could be stopped without complaining to an admin. Also, all of his 40 "minor" edits were undiscussed beforehand, and often he didn't even bother with an edit summary. He interspersed minor clean-up with major changes, all of which I have no desire to go over one by one, so I just reverted it all, and he can re-do the dead link and copy-edit clean up while outlining and discussing the rest on here. User:Theparties, I have no doubt that your edits are in good-faith, but simply indicating on the talk page that you're making changes is not enough, you didn't even bother outlining what they were, and they ended up making the article look different in a way no one had (yet) agreed on. You are not the owner of this article and must show proper consideration for others. Addition: I also suggest in the future instead of splitting up each small change into individual edits that stack up, you group them together so that it only ends up being a few edits, and thus the revision history is much easier to navigate. Cadiomals (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please read the documentation for the {{dead link}} template. My understanding is that this is not intended for dead links which appear as information relating to a live link which was restored from an archive. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)