Talk:Martial law in the Philippines

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Southeast Asia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Proclamation No. 1081 was copied or moved into Martial law in the Philippines on 2020-09-23. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from History of the Philippines (1965–1986) was copied or moved into Martial law in the Philippines on 2020-09-23. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Insufficient info

Insufficient info...but i'll help to expand it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jv22invierno (talk • contribs) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos and GMA sections deleted without comment. Added them back in.

The sections on Marcos and GMA were deleted by an unregistered, anonymous editor without comment here or in the edit comment. I therefore am treating it like vandalism and have added both sections back in with only minor edits. I think that we need both sections, with links to bigger articles. How can there be a discussion of martial law in the Philippines without Marcos? Any other thoughts? --Bruce Hall (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

" it is usually given when threatened by popular demonstrations, or to crack down on the opposition". it is usually given? like being announced every other day? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written by pro-Marcos hacks. How pathetic indeed. It is as if there were no human rights violations and massive corruption during his time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.128.181 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too many edits written by pro-Marcos supporters. Sources are based on opinion, wrong interpretation of data and websites that offer no factual basis to their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.137.177 (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too many added entries based that are based on either (1) opinion articles and not sourced facts, (2) articles with unclear connection with the topic, or (3) dwelling on remote details that sway to non-neutral entries. Please keep this article encyclopedic, fact-based and with a neutral voice. Phthalocyan (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phthalocyan

Kindly note that as per Wikipedia WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Also per WP:NPOV: While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there.

As mentioned, I do not have any issues deleting uncited contributions, but deleting cited contributions just because it presents a different point of view is another matter.

Can you be specific with parts that are not neutral as per WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Of course, what could be not neutral to you could be neutral to another person, so we have to use WP:NPOV as the baseline. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, who started deleting all the atrocities that happened during this period? It's fine if you keep all the good things but when you delete all the bad that happened while editing that in, not to mention backhandedly insulting previous sources used in the article, the neutrality of this page becomes very questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibonman (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ibonman,

The only minor detail which was inadvertently deleted after I was recovering some of the deleted contributions was that "Liliosa Hilao was the first murder victim under Martial Law." It was not intentional, and it was relatively minor and it's now back. A large part of discussion on human rights abuses, including the details of torture and the thousands of human rights abuses contributed by Lammark were not deleted, to be clear. In fact, the last part of the paragraph on the abuses done by the Civilian Home Defense Force on the NPA / leftist was contributed by me, of course giving credence to the book cited.

Regarding 'insulting' the previous source - Primitivo Mijares, first of all, it's not an insult and there was no original research WP:OR. The accusations were lifted from sources like ABS-CBN which are considered as reliable per WP:RS. Anyway I'm no longer adding this minor detail back in this article. Thetruth16 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thetruth16, I noticed that you are entering edit-wars against other editors who think you content is full of unnecessary detail and cherry-picked fact. Yes they are facts, but please, the whole narrative on these articles is so confusing already because of all the details that you put in. May I remind that it is also Wiki's policy that good articles are clear and concise. BihagNaBakunawa (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BihagNaBakunawa,

As mentioned, I already conceded to Phthalocyan on his/her deletions of the accusations on Mijares. I have no intention to have an editing war.

Facts have been picked from the sources to support the background or the topic. Of course, you don't take all information in the source cited. If there are crucial relevant info that I missed, then I can add it later, or other editors can add it.

I thought that the background is crucial to understand the orders during Martial law. For example, the middle part of the article says that Marcos closed down Manila Times / Manila Chronicle and the publishers were jailed. Marcos' just didn't shut them down just because there was martial law - so the details have been narrated in the first part to fill the void.

I suspect that the long complex sentences that I contributed makes them hard to understand. I'll try to shorten the sentences and paraphrase them so they can easily be understood. Thetruth16 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that Tiglao is not a credible source and has the reputation of a conspiracy theorist right?

This page has ceased to be neutral and reeks heavily of cherry picking and historical revisionism. It's fine to add all the good things that happened during this period but to delete all the bad is not doing anyone any favors. Let people decide whether ML was a good period or a bad period. Manipulating a public encyclopedia article is just bad taste. Ibonman (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiglao was only quoted when he blamed the communists and leftist (which he was a part of) for martial law and this is after the phrase "Martial Law has been criticized as a planned precursor to extending Marcos' term in office." What's wrong with that per Wikipedia WP:RS and WP:NPOV? Doesn't Wikipedia's WP:RS say that it's considered a reliable source? Doesn't Wikipedia's WP:NPOV say that with Neutrality that opposing viewpoints have to be placed side-by-side? Why is there a need to censor an opposing viewpoint? Why is there a need to resort to calling a person actually jailed in martial law "conspiracy theorist" and "manipulative"?

In the other quote, Tiglao (contributed by Lammark) actually criticized Gerado Sicat's glowing comments about the economy during ML.

If somebody can get Jose Maria Sison's viewpoint from his site https://www.ndfp.org/ on martial law, then that will make this article more neutral?

"Let people decide whether ML was a good period or a bad period." Well, I certainly agree with this statement, but name-calling and making broad generalizations that the article is not neutral by cherry-picking Tiglao's comments certainly doesn't help. If there's anything here that's original research WP:OR then other editors are more than welcome to edit. Thetruth16 (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC) Suo[reply]

"State of Emergency" citation needed.

In the 1st paragraph under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo I linked the above mentioned "State of Emergency" to a Wikipedia page about that emergency titled "2006 state of emergency in the Philippines". The linked page has many source citations. Is this sufficient to remove the Citation Needed label from this paragraph? 3dSurveyor (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Martial law in the Philippines

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Martial law in the Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rappler.com":

From Juan Ponce Enrile: http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/40261-boss-enrile-gigi-reyes
From Philippines: "Philippine population officially hits 100 million". Rappler.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duterte's declaration of Martial Law over Mindanao

Upon receiving the news that incumbent president Rodrigo Duterte declared Martial Law over the island group of Mindanao, I scrambled to edit the page with timely information. However, I'd like to discuss how we can cover this particular instance of Martial Law?

It is currently not clear regarding the extent of curtailment of civil rights and law, and personally I am not at all experienced with writing about this type of political event. Furthermore, what makes this instance unique is that, instead of affecting the entire Philippines, only the island group of Mindanao is placed under the status. President Duterte is clear that this is martial law and not a state of emergency.

Can more experienced contributors please shed light on the following questions: (sorry if this does not really make sense)

Given the limited scope, is a section about it relevant to this page?
When the story develops and more details are revealed, should that information be in another page?
Would it be beneficial to, at this point, create a new article on this particular instance, or should we wait for further developments?
Am I doing something that is wrong or can be improved?

Thank you! Joshua Vargas (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Martial law in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Martial law in the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Martial law in the Philippines

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Martial law in the Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Celoza1997":

From Ferdinand Marcos: Celoza, Albert F. (1997). Ferdinand Marcos and the Philippines: The Political Economy of Authoritarianism. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0-275-94137-6. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
From Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos: Celoza, Albert F. (1997). Ferdinand Marcos and the Philippines: The Political Economy of Authoritarianism. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780275941376.

Reference named "Kasaysayan9ch10":

From Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos: Magno, Alexander R., ed. (1998). "Democracy at the Crossroads". Kasaysayan, The Story of the Filipino People Volume 9:A Nation Reborn. Hong Kong: Asia Publishing Company Limited.
From Ferdinand Marcos: Magno, Alexander R., ed. (1998). "Democracy at the Crossroads". Kasaysayan, The Story of the Filipino People Volume 9:A Nation Reborn. Hong Kong: Asia Publishing Company Limited.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiglao as citation source

Should we be using Rigoberto Tiglao as a citation source here? Tiglao has been spreading false news and disinformation for about a decade now, proof listed on his article. I don't think he is a reliable source anymore. -Object404 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no objections, removing the citations to Tiglao. -Object404 (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Tags due for removal? It's been 7 years.

The two maintenance tags at the top of the article are dated 2012 and 2016, respectively. The article has been improved many times since then, and where relevant, there are section maintenance tags in place to address specific topics. My impression is that the maintenance tags can now be safely removed, with any section maintenance tags kept in place for specific issues. (And perhaps new ones added, if necessary.) I shall implement in maybe a week if there are no objections here. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be removed now. -Object404 (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21st century literature

about writers 158.62.65.193 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]