Talk:2006 state of emergency in the Philippines

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 24, 2010, February 24, 2011, February 24, 2013, and February 24, 2016.

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.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

why would anyone want to coup her, she looks like a nice lady —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.237.11 (talk • contribs) .

It is most Filipinos are already gotten pissed of her (NPOV). Since 2001, poverty in the Philippines was not resolved. Another reason is the issue of Charter Change, specifically the change of form of government from Democratic-Republic into a Federal Parliamentary system, in which it is not a solution of poverty and corruption. Darth Narutorious 06:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to the President, she did numerous programs and projects (like MRT and North Luzon Expressway) since 2001 to uplift the poor. She also created more than 1 million jobs and attract foreign investors to invest in the Philippines. She made stronger diplomatic ties between nations (like the United States of America, where President Bush was warmly welcomed. The Philippine media labeled him as ang pinakamakapangyarihang tao sa balat ng lupa (the most powerful man in Earth). Darth Narutorious 13:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's not really a nice lady, but a cold, calculating politician who has not come clean about her involvement in the election scandal, and faces opposition by many of the common Filipinos. I'm part-Filipino, and many pf my friends and relations that I've talked to in the Philippines this past night are scared that she will try to usurp power. The worst thing is that there wasn't really anyone to choose from in the last election, her main opponent, Fernando Poe, did not even finish high school. After the Hello Garci incident, confidence in the Philippines from investors was shaken and if she goes further to consolidate power, she might risk losing her support from the U.S and Japan.--Folksong 17:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lived there for a few years. I don't like her and none of my Filipino friends does. Anonymous anonymous 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batasan 5[edit]

I think the Batasan 5 should have their own entry which links to this one, rather than the current situation, where if someone searches for them they are redirected here. Hopefully noone minds is I take off the redirect to this site and fill it in with some information. Namtug 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More information, please[edit]

For an article that's linked to the main page, it sure is missing the obvious question of "why is this happening?" ekedolphin 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section regarding causes of the coup, which was already linked to, but certainly needed to be in this article. User: thechosenone021

Thank you! Darth Narutorious 14:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is blatantly biased towards the anti-GMA factions. This is obviously a plant by some leftist. A more neutral standpoint, please.

Be bold. Your opinions will be NPOV violations. However, opinions of pro-GMA factions are not. Be sure to quote them directly Howard the Duck 15:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's false, see this NPOV. The opposing views are welcome, even the left, in order to respond to the government line. NPOV presents the conflicting views, not just the government line, and should be neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject But, yes, quotes are good. :) --Noypi380 03:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should rename the Criticisms section into like a "Reactions" sections, so we can have both sides of the story? Howard the Duck 14:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There could be an another section called "Reactions" for those who support the declaration of state of emergency. Don't worry, I will find those reactions. For now, its harder to find the "pro" rather than the "anti" which is easier to find. Just a reminder: I am neutral! --- Darth Narutorious 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the "Reactions" and "Criticisms" sections, then I split them to pro-Arroyo and anti-Arroyo (unless someone comes up with a better section name). Also please avoid using "AFP" for most people will think that is the Agence France Press. Howard the Duck 17:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's entry[edit]

The Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article has similar information as this. So, what will happen? I'm tired of editing BOTH of them! Haha... Darth Narutorious 07:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a count on how many people have died?

No one died in the incident, but many were arrested (especially rallyists and leaders). Many were injured by the Police by hitting them. Some vehicles (like jeepneys) were confiscated even though it is not part of the rally. Darth Narutorious 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I saw in TV, protesters were beaten so badly and repeatedly, even when they stayed in the ground in submission! --Noypi380 11:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go People Power![edit]

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 10:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Again?

Yes, again! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 13:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so... Darth Narutorious 13:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puwersa ng Masa!--Folksong 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? Darth Narutorious 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Filipino Folksong? (I can speak Tagalog) I think this page requires more information. I was watching the news earlier, they supplied us with little information. Anonymous anonymous 01:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm half Filipino, I don't speak that much Tagalog though. But you're right, this page definitely needs more information, most notably the procedures and justifications on behalf of Arroyo's administration and the criticisms from her opponents. The "state of emergency" declaration is definitely the last thing the Philippines needs now though.--Folksong 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Are there any pictures that don't look like someone took a photo of their television? Capitan Obvio 13:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures involving this subject in other websites. The problem is I don't know how to place pictures in articles and we might be breaching copyright. Sorry again for my terrible English. Anonymous anonymous 16:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you saw a picture in the internet, just post the url here. If the picture came from you... then that's a problem! Haha! -- Darth Narutorious 16:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title is not NPOV[edit]

The word "alleged" needs to be inserted into the tilte. So far this "coup" is only an allegation dispensed by the government in order to justify its assault on democratic rights. If the title isn't changed, I will consider adding a neutrality tag to this article. 207.6.31.119 17:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not going to happen. All of the major news sources are saying "coup attempt" none add the 'alleged' qualifier. If you can bring in a verifiable source that questions whether or not it happened then feel free to do so... but, most news sources are referring to this as a coup attempt and it'd be original research to add "alleged". gren グレン 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through some news articles on the net, I see that the majority of them seem to have a schizophrenic presentation of this story. On the one hand, the titles of the articles assert that a coup attempt has indeed happened, but on the other hand, if you read the first two or three lines of these same articles they all call it an alleged coup. I notice that the wikipedia article does the same. 207.6.31.119 20:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common problem with newspapers, as headlines are written by copy editors and not the writer of the articles themselves. Generally copy editors are constrained by space and time to come up with a headline and can get things wrong, although the worst offenders seem to sensationalize as well. Personally, I think the proper thing to do is do what the NY Times did and headline Arroyo's state of emergency, not the alledged coup. I'll recommend Wikipedia do that as well and move this article to 2006 Philippines state of emergency. Most of the information pertains to the state of emergency primarily and how it dovetails into both the alleged coup and the separate but coincidental People Power commemorations, which would make it a more accurate title as well. hateless 21:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't much anyone can do about this; the major news outlets are POV, period. Wiki conventions on using the most common referents are conflicting with wiki conventions regarding NPOV. This happens a lot for news articles. To play devil's advocate, including the word "alleged" could be construed as supporting POV that the event should be labeled as other than a coup.

the devil's advocate is wrong here, "alleged" is not POV when the only source of information of this coup is from Arroyo. As for news outlets being POV, if you want to argue no outlet is NPOV, even by those who profess and strive toward NPOV, then you'd by extension argue Wikipedia can never be NPOV, which makes the whole argument moot. The NPOV model on Wikipedia about the same as the one in journalism, so if you want to fault journalism you fault Wikipedia and its NPOV policy as well. hateless 21:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of "alleged" aside, I think the title should be "coup attempt" rather than just "coup", since it was unsuccessful. See the definition of coup. Coffee 21:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal, rename title to Philippines state of emergency, 2006 or variation of that name, pending a better name. Everything in the news is about the "State of Emergency", CNN, BBC clearly uses that title. I suggest that we move this thing asap. BTW, independent newspapers were raided and taken over today, though I can't confirm. Its important that we fix this title. --Noypi380 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that proposal. I'm surprised it's taking so long to change such an obviously pov and inaccurate title. 207.6.31.119 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. Philippines under state of emergency, 2006 sounds sensible, for now. El_C 02:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there strong objections to re-naming the article? At any rate, I added it being an alleged coup to the Main page. El_C 02:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it already. If anyone has objections, we can talk bout it here. I moved it to El C's suggested title. --Noypi380 02:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on modifying the intro to go along with the new title. El_C 03:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we move EDSA III to Philippines under state of rebellion, 2001, and move Oakwood Mutiny to Philippines under state of emergency, 2003? And yes, I'm being sarcastic to prove a point. :p The declaration of state of emergency is an effect of the coup attempt, and should be the focus of the article. Coffee 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That's an interesting point, though the basis of the new title are [1], and [2], those two wikipedia articles used words invented by the local media. Hmmm. I'll ask around first. :) --Noypi380 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to wait and see what the name for the event will end up being. I note, for example, that BBC titles their In Pictures as Philippines emergency, the Saudi Arab News title their article Emergency in Philippines, Tempo title theirs as State of Emergency, and so on. Of course, all of them mention a (possible) coup plot as well, just not in the title. Others, of course, do. El_C 04:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree on renaming EDSA III and Oakwood mutiny. For one, the name should be what the people call it. Like Manuel Pacquiao vs. Manny Pacquiao. Nobody will call EDSA III as Philippines under state of rebellion, 2001, unless your a political analyst (and it was a State of Rebellion right?). However, I'm fine with the current title of this article (perhaps its a little bit long, but redirects will help). Howard the Duck 08:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's better if you just put a redirect to a more proper name for it instead of following what is considered popular. --Quess 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee ~~Gosh! It's American Idol judge Simon~~ was just being sarcastic. :) I see no demand to rename at the moment those other wikipedia articles, but I do agree that this article should put some focus on the "coup attempt" itself. Apparently no one can get access to info on the "coup" itself up to now. :) BTW a left leaning representative of Congress was arrested recently, one of almost 100 people. :) --Noypi380 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information[edit]

Okay, maybe there was a real threat, but the article is a little to definite that it really happenned. But the title is fine.

PS. How did you get this up so fast? Theonlyedge 21:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's what we do.... Rich Farmbrough. 21:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Another reason were better and flat out cooler than Encyclopedia britannica. --Banana04131 23:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that Wikipedia is the best Online Encyclopedia. Anonymous anonymous 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key Issue - Coup vs. Withdrawal of Support[edit]

(Through protests for civilians or laying down one's arms for soldiers) Is withdrawing support for the authority, which a citizen considers in his/her mind as illegitimate, equal to a coup? Is "withdrawal of support = "coup attempt"? --Noypi380 12:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not. AFP Chief-of-Staff General Angelo Reyes and PNP Chief Dir. Gen. Panfilo Lacson did a "withdrawal of support" from President Estrada during the People Power 2 however, did not do something to be consider as a coup d'etat. Although, a "withdrawal of support" could lead to a "coup attempt" if the administration does not do something about it. Darth Narutorious 12:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that current situation and EDSA II can be labeled as "soft coups."

Case in point:

* The details of the alleged coup attempt of February 24 is not known.

* The ongoing crisis at Fort Bonifacio can be classified as a "soft coup." Howard the Duck 13:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coup, or a "soft coup" is in question since no one labeled them as such. Only thing is for sure, there is a "withdrawal of support" that happened during People Power 2. Well, thank you Howard the Duck for sharing your knowledge about the details of the event. -- Darth Narutorious 14:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should make a distinction between the alleged foiled coup attempt and the state of emergency? Howard the Duck 18:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. That is a prefect example of cause and effect! -- Darth Narutorious 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are we really sure about that? I have so many doubts. --Noypi380 13:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about looking for info about the alleged coup plotters? No one seems to be talking about them. Were they arrested or detained? Should we use the term "detain" instead of "arrests"? Howard the Duck 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two "alleged" coup plotters, named Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, and a military officer. Lim is said to be detained in AFP, and there are many causes of the "alleged" coup plot like the Communists having to do with this. If you are talking about the heading, are all of them detained? They are only under the process of arresting, whether an warrantless arrest or not, or even under preliminary investigation. I am also getting enough information of what's happening among the "alleged" coup plotters. I hope I answered your question. -- Darth Narutorious 02:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legalities[edit]

Should we add a "Legalities" section? We would delve on to murky POV territory. What are your thoughts? Howard the Duck 18:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may, let's see... -- Darth Narutorious 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Suggestion. The free press should have a whole section too, because they were the most affected by emergency powers. Why does the government want the press to be "fair and balanced" not only in reporting, but also in commentary? Commentary is the moment when press can actually express their views after they reported the news fair and square. What does government involvement in press freedom imply? --Noypi380 06:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found the section. :) --Noypi380 12:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody did it.-- Kapuso 08:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proclamation No. 1017 and General Order No. 5[edit]

Much of the material may go to Wikisource, so perhaps we should devote much of those articles to their perceived effects, legalities and constitutionalities. Also, I'm thinking of adding Proclamation No. 1081 to Wikisource. Howard the Duck 13:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, maybe we should just have an outline and the major stuff. Law stuff should be at Wikisource, and all the stuff not fitted for Wikipedia. Be Bold!. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it, even Executive Order No. 464. just wait... -- Kapuso 13:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Howard the Duck 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kapuso, are you also Filipino? Anonymous anonymous 21:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? -- Kapuso 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article?[edit]

What do you think guys/gals? Howard the Duck 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- Darth Narutorious 10:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sagada 11[edit]

Something should be added about 11 backpackers arrested in Sagada undergoing police interrogation.--Han 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Almost half of the links on the the external links section are not that relevant to the article aside from being mentioned as a reference to most of the content here. --Quess 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of removing the barely relevant links. Please feel free to dispute. --Quess 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a dispute...We should remove even more of the links...joke. I think that section should be trimmed down more, lot more. ;-) --Noypi380 14:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you return the one linking to the Malacañang news? -- Darth Narutorious 15:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored but pointed to direct article. --Quess 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Court martial[edit]

Could a section be added on the arrests and courts martial of alleged military leaders? Generals Miranda and Lim, Medal of Valor Awardees, Cols. Ariel Querubin and Jun Parcon, and Medal of Valor nominee (and hero of Lamitan) Capt. Ruben Guinolbay?

The Scout Rangers who were arrested, with the exeption of Gen. Lim, were not in the vicinity of Fort Bonifacio when they were arrested. Their trial remains controversial to this day because the evidence presented against them has been repudiated by the military's pre-trial investigation panel.

Irwinrommel 01:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the references. T.rebelyell 16:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-discussion-sectiontitle[edit]

Perhaps those articles plus General Order No. 5 talk with the same thing and they do not deserve individual articles especially that there is nothing special to them in fact that they relate at the same article, which is the state of emergency. Individual sections of the proclamations on this article would be better.--JL 09^{Talk to me!} 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]