Talk:Zamboanga City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zamboanga City article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 (Before June 2006)

Contents

[edit] summary

/summaryZamboangaCity

  • The above is summary for use in wikipedias of other languages. It is not meant to be comprehensive. Please do not expand but feel free to add vital information.
  • Please do not archive.--Jondel 09:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kidnapping incident

"... In the 1990s, Zamboanga was notorious as the site of repeated kidnappings and attempted kidnappings and extortion of Westerners by fundamentalist Moro Muslim separatists known as the Abu Sayyaf."

                                                      - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i disagree with the above statement. indeed in 1990s incidents about the kidnappings of westerners by the abu sayyaf were rampant but those didn't happen right in the city. the other islands which are also part of the zamboanga peninsula and have been the abusayaf's haven are separated from the city proper of zamboanga by sea. zamboanga city has remained peaceful to these days. muslims and christians managed to live peacefully for years. i have known the city all throughout my life.

the abu sayaf are in basilan not in zamboanga city.....dont ruin the reputation of zamboanga city, since its peacefull.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.126.6.76 (talk • contribs). [1]

I have a question. Under the demographics, does 'Spanish-Filipino' and 'Chinese-Filipino' refer to mestizos? M P M 01:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Infobox map

As continued from User talk:Howard the Duck#Map of Zamboanga City on the City's infobox

Ok. Lets settle what map we should put in the infobox.

First, let us see the Manila page. On the infobox, we see a locator map. The local map doesn't appear after the first two-thirds of the article.

Now let see the Seville, Spain page. Again on the infobox, we see a locator map. There isn't even a local map on the page.

On the Bangkok page, again on the infobox appears a locator map.

I am a strong supporter of infoboxes, and how they should be used correctly. Infoboxes should give a summary of information. Lazy users won't read the article, they'll rather look at the infobox.

Now about the residents of Zamboanga City POV. Unfortunately, that is against WP:NPOV. On the infobox it says province, and although Zamboanga City residents may find that insulting, it still worth mentioning on the infobox that Zamboanga City was a part of Zamboanga del Sur.

I saw the Manila page. Manila is "not traced" to any line from any province. Look at your map. Zamboanga is traced to a line from del sur province. Now, is that neutral point of view? The issue is not about what we feel, but on misleading information. Such kind of information are provocative. --Weekeejames 07:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The red line? Those are provincial borders. About Manila, it has been largely independent in its history, right? --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the red line and even though they are provincial borders, but what's the point? Are we talking here about the Zamboanga Provinces or Zamboanga City - the independent chartered city? --Weekeejames 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Lazy users won't read the article, they'll rather look at the infobox." - Well that defeats the Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia's purpose. We should go see an almanac rather than read articles on Wikipedia. --Weekeejames 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So what's the connection to the map? --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Your reasoning is faulty. --Weekeejames 07:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Infoboxes are meant to be summaries. It aims to give info on a glance. So what's wrong with that? --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
And infoboxes should not be misleading. They should not also be taken as a subsitute for articles because this is a wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Look, I have stated my opposition to that map, and I have said my points. --Weekeejames 07:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What's so misleading about the new map, it now shows that Zamboanga City is independent of any province. The colors for del Norte, del Sur and Sibugay are now brown. Zamboanga City is red. If del Sur's colors are light beige, then it means that Zamboanga City is within Zamboanga del Sur. See Image:Ph locator zamboanga del sur zamboanga.png#File history. --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, first of all, let me establish that I'm neutral, so I'll try to maintain as unbiased as I can against either side. The thing with Manila is that the city itself is a direct descendent of the province that was called "Manila", and that the grouping of cities and municipalities into today's Metro Manila was with the intention of provincial status, but since Metro Manila has been so urbanized, the description of "province" was no longer accurate, even though Metro Manila in the Marcos era had Imelda Marcos as "provincial" governor. So technically, the locator map of Manila is accurate.
With Zamboanga, on the other hand, Zamboanga City was made independent of the former Zamboanga province, as stated in Article 47 of the city's charter. However, Zamboanga province itself had no legal heir when the province was split into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur under RA 711, and further on to include Zamboanga Sibugay. Politically, Zamboanga City cannot be associated with any Zamboanga subdivision unless there is something stating that either one of the three Zamboangas today can claim to be or is recognized by the government today as the legal heir of "old Zamboanga" (like how Russia is the political heir of the Soviet Union). The issue now I think is of a more socio-cultural importance of who's closer to who, rather than political. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 11:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I guess the issue now is (hopefully) resolved. The point of contention really was the map. With the changing of the colors, labelling and captioning in the map, I hope everybody's happy. --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems better, but the red line again is questionable. I suggest a series of "- - - - -" would do the trick. I appreciate the editing of the infobox on province. --Weekeejames 14:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Are you saying that the lines and the shade are both colored red? --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Howard, the color is not really important. It's the line. Have a look at www.zamboanga.com and why they think that line, although it only serves as a mark for bordering, is making it such an issue. The line is tracing to diff points. Why not make it a series of hyphens of sorts. Like - - - - - - - - - instead of a straight line. Got my point? --Weekeejames 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So all borders, instead of being solid, must be changed to dashes? --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Not the color shades, but the continuous line should be changed to a series of dashes, if you will. That way, it won't look as it's like a tracing line. Are you drunk? :D --Weekeejames 15:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol, so all of Zamboanga City's borders would be a series of dashes. Perhaps I can do it tomorrow morning. Or, you can even do it yourself, so that there would be no mistakes. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I leave it up to you to change it because you're the one who keeps on insisting that regional map, anyways. Good luck! --Weekeejames 15:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, BUT I'd post a preview first to see if you'd agree, tomorrow. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC
Wait, I'd be restarting the indentions, OK?

While doing the map, I don't see the point making dashed lines, because whatever you'd do, they're still political boundaries. Lets have a consensus on this first. How about making the 3 provinces and the city with different colors, as done [2] here? I did my own version here. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, we're talking here about Zamboanga City and not about Zamboanga Peninsula, aren't we? The dashed lines would do the trick because it will show (a) the borders (b) the political boundaries which are important (c) it will break the continuous line that erroneously seems like a tracing line. Actually, if you will just agree with the local map, it will be just fine because the exact location of Zamboanga City in the world is just right there: on the location sub heading. And the location sub heading isn't really that long for lazy readers!--Weekeejames 16:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What are tracing lines? In the map we have now, it is a fact that Zamboanga City is distinct from any province. All of the 3 provinces are colored brown, not light beige. Also, we need to see where Zamboanga City is. I can draw a square here, and say its Colorado, but you'd need to have an idea where it is in relation to other places. The local map does not have that, it just shows Zamboanga City, in fine detail, if I may add, but it doesn't give the reader an idea where it is in relation with other places. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
A tracing line is a line that you can trace from one point to another. I can put a square and say it's Zamboanga City by pointing out to its west is the Sulu Sea, to the east the Moro Gulf and to the south, the Basilan Strait, to the Southwest, the Celebes Sea and it will be fine without having the square in relation to any province. Look at the satellite map, as an example. --Weekeejames 17:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but the satellite map shows a piece of land that is Zambo del Norte, while the local map just shows white space on areas outside the City's jurisdictions. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
But at least it doesn't have a tracing line that can trace from one point to another. See the dashed line. Come on, are we going on circles here? Im sleepy. Just have a look at www.zamboanga.com and Zamboanga_del_Sur and try to understand why inaccuracies are provocative. --Weekeejames 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


I have comments below on actually removing the boundaries, but dashed lines can also mean territorial demarcation lines; they don't necessarily have to be political. But anyway, the problem with that is that we need district/barangay(?) boundaries of Zamboanga City for that to work, since legally there are no towns in the conurbation that is the City of Zamboanga. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we'd need barangay (although district would be good) boundaries. I think the point of contention here is how to represent Zamboanga City in a map. We all know it is independent from any province, the problem is how to make it appear that way. IMHO, the current map does just that. BTW, I've edited image description page of the map too. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, go to Zamboanga_del_Sur and have a look at their map. See the color shades of Zamboanga City and Zamboanga del Sur. Doesn't it look like Zamboanga City belongs to Zamboanga del Sur province? Isn't that map also inaccurate and misleading? That's the whole point of www.zamboanga.com's contention. --Weekeejames 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes I've noticed that too, and already informed User:TheCoffee about it. I don;t want to mess around with his files, one is enough. Although I agree with you that those are incorrect. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is actually political, and that is the reason why Zamboanga City was made independent of the Zamboanga provinces when it was created as a chartered city. Zamboanga City has NOTHING to do with any of the Zamboanga provinces, and Zamboanga City does not want to associate itself with any of the provinces, nor does it want any of the provinces be associated with her. The city's charter speaks for her. Any association would only be geographic. But again, any geographic tool such as a map should be careful as not to mislead information on this politically sensitive issue that includes geo-boundaries. Geo-jurisdiction also means political jurisdiction. That map served its purpose - to show the borders. However, it was misleading as the line was tracing Zamboanga City to Zamboanga del Sur province and as an added insult to injury, the line that says formerly of Zamboanga del Sur province was insisted. It was outrageous. --Weekeejames 14:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I really don;t get this line? Provincial boundaries? The map states that the City and del Sur are separate. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I meant the province line (row would have been a better word) on the infobox where you stated that it was formerly of Zamboanga del Sur province. I looked at it as an added insult to injury with that misleading map. Again, I appreciate the editing on that. --Weekeejames 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it already. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Development: While I still stand by my statement earlier, I decided to check the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) website for their say on the "Zamboanga is where?" issue. According to them, for statistical reasons, Zamboanga City is grouped under Zamboanga del Sur. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps on statistics Zamboanga City is grouped under Zamboanga del Sur, but politically they're separate. Makes me ask, anybody have a list independent cities in the Philippines? --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
And why on earth would Zamboanga City be grouped under Zamboanga del Sur for statistical purposes? Just look at the (more accurate) map. You gotta cross Zamboanga Sibugay before you even reach Zamboanga City from del sur. --Weekeejames 14:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure with the NSCB, but I think they didn't take into account properly the Zamboanga del Sur-Zamboanga Sibugay split. In fact, even the ZIP Code directory, of which the one on the Wikipedia is taken from the PLDT telephone directory here in Metro Manila, groups Zamboanga City and Zamboanga Sibugay under Zamboanga del Sur in the printed version (the one here documents Zamboanga Sibugay as separate; I think Philpost needs to update their ZIP Code directories). --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Cities of the Philippines mentions that. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 14:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not complete, methinks. --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So do I. However, I think that the independent cities of the Philippines include this city, the cities of Metro Manila, Baguio City, Cebu City, Davao City, Ormoc City and Naga City. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 14:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've already begun a discussion at Talk:Cities of the Philippines#Independent cities. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
People working for NSCB on Zamboanga City's statistics are dimwits. Just as Zamboanga City has always been branded as a city of terrorists and terror activities, this city is so misunderstood and infos about her have always been misleading and inaccurate. --Weekeejames 14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well we can't necessarily blame them. They technically are part of the government, so they "might" know what they're doing. Anyway, I think the reason why the original map was made was because of the statistical reasons, but since I still stick by my original statements (see above) and since I'm still techinically neutral, Zamboanga City would be better off independent until for some reason some Zamboanga division is mysteriously the heir of the former province, which I doubt (unless someone has access to RA 711 at, let's say, the National Library)?
Whether Zamboanga City represents the former province or not does not matter. Again, the city's charter speaks for her. Zamboanga City as an independent chartered city is what really matters. Funny how and why those provinces always want to associate themselves with Zamboanga hermosa! --Weekeejames 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
But still, since Zamboanga City, as stated by its charter, is independent of any Zamboanga province existing today, how about we just have the Zamboanga Peninsula map without any borders excluding the regional border with Region X, to accurately document the old Zamboanga province, of which the city was made independent of. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
We're talkin about Zamboanga City here, so why not use basically a Zamboanga City map? --Weekeejames 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
We can, but since we're making a map of Zamboanga City up to provincial standards, is there like a map of districts/barangays (?) that we can use? --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Because we'd need to know where Zamboanga City is in relation with other places. Have you seen a local map used in an infobox? More often than not, there is a locator map but no local map. I'd suggest to use the discussion within two horizontal lines above. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
For our sakes, let me restart the indentation:

In order to make a provincial map, the map has to be made to the following specifications (as stated by my observations of User:TheCoffee's maps):

  1. The province/city/what-not has to be shown in relation to the region it is in
  2. Internal boundaries must represent the locality in light beige with non-affiliated entities in brown
  3. External boundaries are in red while internal boundaries are in grey

To make a Zamboanga City map that would be up to provincial standards, we need a set of internal divisions. Districts would be nice, for example, but of course, it's only a suggestion. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, Have a look at this page Zambo City satellite map and note the dashed line. Can you do something like that with your map? --Weekeejames 17:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, that is a very accurate map of Zamboanga City. --Weekeejames 17:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I don't see the difference if we use dashed lines or solid lines. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Again look at the main page of www.zamboanga.com and look at Zamboanga_del_Sur and you will understand zamboanga.com's contention. --Weekeejames 17:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the current map does not suggest that the City is not a part of any province, right? Also the webpage was wrong: Zamboanga del Sur people did not create that. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Zamboanga has only 1 legislative district, dunno about administrative districts. For me, in cases of Zamboanga (and independent cities outside Metro Manila), the map would show the city in relation with the region, since they're not a part of any province. Internal divisions would be nice, but I think they're too detailed. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the city article, by the time of the elections next year, the Lone District of Zamboanga City would be split into two, one for the eastern shore and one for the western shore, including Zamboanga City proper. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It won't have any effects on Zamboanga City as an independent charter city. --Weekeejames 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So a Zamboanga City locator map would show the two districts? Again, I don't like the inclusion of barangays in Wikipedia, so I dunno about that. How about Manila, they're six, right? We'll be doing that to? Also, Davao has 3. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Since Manila has a locator map with its administrative districts, I don't think documenting its legislative districts is necessary. With Davao, while the city is independent, it is generally regarded as part of Davao del Sur, so the current map there is fine. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Therein lies the rub! I also thought that Zamboanga City is attached to Zamboanga del Sur, or even Zamboanga Sibugay (several offline maps suggest that, even the COMELEC implies the City is within the province). Since the regions' locator maps show them in reference to a country, while the municipalities and cities are shown in relation with their provinces, should independent cities be shown in relation to their respective regions, since no province "owns" them, irrespective of their districts and barangays? --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Note first that the COMELEC uses NSCB statistics, but the concept of independent cities within regions sounds good. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I was told not to trust the government, now I can't even trust their websites lol. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, but how about the DILG? Even the DILG says Zamboanga City is under Zamboanga del Sur. I think there's a government consensus on that. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 01:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Methinks still the City is separate from any province. --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So do I. I think its for statistical reasons again? --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 04:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. Perhaps it is for statistical groupings only. Gathering and presenting stats such as this would be doubly hard if independent cities are not associated with a province. --Howard the Duck | talk, 04:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


After quite a lengthy deliberation/debate on the map, I concede to the fact that the locator map of Zamboanga City is now fine and not necesarily misleading anymore. After the color shades have been changed, the line now seems to only serve one purpose: to show the provincial borders within the Zamboanga Peninsula. It does not seem to trace Zamboanga City anymore to the del Sur province. I would like to thank Howard the Duck and Akira123323 for their kind understanding on the matter. Still, I would like to ask Howard the Duck to contact TheCoffee to please do the same with the Zamboanga_del_Sur map which seems to show that Zamboanga City is part of Zamboanga del Sur province.

www.zamboanga.com has released a critical note, and I quote:

"Terror Map of Zamboanga City has been corrected thanks to the rapid response and heroism of many Zamboangueños and their friends. The Zamboanga del sur terrorist map herein will remain posted here for many more to see and be educated by it. This illegal map depiction of Zamboanga City by Zamboanga del sur has been going on for decades! We will not rest until the country and the world knows about this crime of cyber-terror against a peaceful sovereign city and its proud people!"

In behalf of Zamboangeños, muchisimas gracias. --Weekeejames 06:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The battle is not yet over, there still many maps in bookstores that depict the City as part of Sibugay or del Sur. But let Wikipedia be the first. Also, if TheCoffee can tell me the font/s he used perhaps I can change all of them. Weekeejames, are you the owner of that site? --Howard the Duck | talk, 11:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't own that site. --Weekeejames 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I have reservations in showing Zamboanga City apart from its mother province Zamboanga del Sur. I guess for the resolution of this issue, the following points would have to be considered:
It is true that highly urbanized cities are independent from their mother province, this is affirmed by Section 29 of the Local Government Code which provides that: Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be independent of the province. No legislation of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan can be made applicable to them, and residents of the highly urbanized cities do not vote for provincial officials.
The Local Government Code of 1991 provides (Chapter 3, Article I, Section 25) — The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to Barangays.
If this is the case the First Level Subdivision or the primary political subdivision of the Philippines are: not the 79 provinces alone but shall include the 2 special cities (Manila and Quezon City), 27 highly urbanized cities, 2 independent component cities, 3 municipalities of Metro Manila. As the chief executives of these local government units report directly to the Philippine President.
The Second Level Subdivision of the Philippines are the component cities and municipalities of the Philippines.
The Third Level Subdivision of the Philippines are the barangays - but what about for the highly urbanized cities and independent component cities??? Do they become second level then, since their city is a first level subdivision?
However, as listed in the Philippine Standard Geographic Code, the highly urbanized provinces are grouped together with the municipalities of its mother province. Metro Manila's case should be an exception.
In a nutshell if we decide that Zamboanga City be shown apart from its mother province being an highly urbanized city then it must also be the case for other highly urbanized cities and the independent component cities which are as follows: Baguio City (from Benguet), Angeles City (from Pampanga), Olongapo City (from Zambales), Lucena City (from Quezon), Bacolod City (from Negros Occidental), Iloilo City (from Iloilo Province), Cebu and Mandaue Cities (from Cebu Province), Zamboanga City (from Zamboanga del Sur), Iligan City (from Lanao del Norte), Cagayan de Oro City (from Misamis Oriental), Davao City (from Davao del Sur), General Santos City (from South Cotabato), Butuan City (from Agusan del Norte), and Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig, Taguig, Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Caloocan, Malabon, Valenzuela (all from Metro Manila); and the independent component cities which are: Santiago City (from Isabela), Ormoc City (Leyte Province), Cotabato City (from Maguindanao). --Scorpion prinz | talk, 18:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Zamboanga City does not have a "mother province." It does NOT belong to any province, nor does any province own her. --Weekeejames 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Howard, it seems that www.zamboanga.com is not fully convinced. See www.zamboanga.com again and look, your map is there! I think for as long as TheCoffee does not edit that map on Zamboanga_del_Sur, www.zamboanga.com will not rest on the issue against the del Sur province. Please allow me to edit the caption of your map for www.zamboanga.com's sake. Leave it there temporarily. Gracias. --Weekeejames 14:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get their beef with the current map. It shows Zamboanga City as a primary subdivision and its location within Region IX. It does not indicate association with any province except by proximity (which is the point of a locator map). Polaron | Talk 14:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Me either. I thought after a lengthy deliberation and Howard's editing of the original misleading map, everything was now fine except Zamboanga_del_Sur's map. I even emailed the people behind www.zamboanga.com and explained to them what has been going on here at Wikipedia. Seems like they are not fully convinced especially because the map of Zamboanga_del_Sur has not been edited. See for yourself. On the del sur's page, it does seem like Zamboanga City is part of the del Sur province which is way wrong. --Weekeejames 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, changing a single map isn't that hard. Changing a lot of maps is a lot harder. We would take time in changing those maps, especially since they were TheCoffee's project like a year ago?
Zamboanga del sur's cyber terrorist goons are indeed very desperate in OWNING Zamboanga City, no matter what! They are probably behind the drive to convert our prosperous City into a lowly province like theirs, to match their sorry state!!! The Zamboanga City government must do something to stop this pervasive terror attack! - zamboanga.com
Ok, now, if you think wrong maps are offending, then they do should do something about it! Creating maps is no easy task, especially if you're making a lot of maps for a whole country. What they should do is go here and let their voices be heard. It is very hard to please close-minded people, but please, if there's a problem, they should tell it to us, and we'll do something about it. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that you and I have done our best. Your Zamboanga City locator map is fine and does not need to be changed anymore. I think it only takes a little "explanatory note" for them for a while. They don't participate in Wikipedia and I don't think they are aware of our discussions. So, a little explanatory note will, hopefully, work for now. Also, I persoanally still think the locator map of Zamboanga del Sur should be changed. Yes, wrong maps can indeed be offending, but we can't force them to come and join Wikipedia. :) --Weekeejames 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a legend key will do the trick, although that'll mean will have to add each and every map a legend key (no favoritism) which is way too hard. --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
uh uh --Weekeejames 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Just noting that I edited the locator map for Zamboanga del Sur so that Zamboanga City is no longer highlighted. I hope this reolves the issue. Polaron | Talk 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate being a killjoy, but Zamboanga.com has released this statement about the present locator map:

Zamboanga City's Map is NOT an image of Zamboanga Peninsula, and vice-versa! The Zamboanga Peninsula "map" belongs to the article that exactly denotes it! You don't put our city map to represent the peninsula as a "locator map" do you? Whatever you have against our city needs to stay in you and not in your Wiki portrayal of our Chartered "City of Flowers." May your heart be at peace...

I'm not sure what their intention is, but hopefully they get the fact that it only shows its location among the other Zamboangas and not as an attack on the sovereignty of the City of Zamboanga.

Furthermore, this supplementary statement was also released:

This exact representation map of Zamboanga City was intentionally removed by this map terrorist who controls our city's history in Wiki pedia and placed in a non-descript section like a terrorist captured hostage, with no details! The topic is our City and NOT the Peninsula! Make it so you heartless terrorist!!!

Unless the intention of Zamboanga.com is to deliberately declare the three "map-makers" involved in the Zamboanga City-Zamboanga del Sur controversy (TheCoffee, Howard the Duck and Polaron) terrorists, hopefully that they get it through themselves that the map only shows Zamboanga City within its place in the region. If they would like to release a city map into the public domain, GFDL or any other license (as is the case with User:Seav's map of Manila) and post it into the article, they can do so to diffuse this controversy. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they want a locator map showing the entire country? In any case, the current locator map is fine as is I think. Polaron | Talk 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Not sure with them. It seems that they haven't given up on the issue yet. On a personal level, however, the map is fine with me. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yahoo! I'm a terrorist! But certainly I'm not as bad as this, lol. --Howard the Duck 00:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to put my two cents. The people from Zamboanga City have a right to correct wrong perceptions of their city's sovereignty vis-a-vis that of the rest of Zamboanga. But the vitriol of some of their citizens on a public website is shameful. I think the issue, internally, is almost resolved (there's the matter of the other Zamboanga del Sur locator maps) but the map on Zamboanga City itself is perfectly fine. Don't cave in to their vicious remarks. I've never seen Davao City citizens act this way with regard to their place with Davao del Sur. --seav 11:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do think that it is a case of public overreaction. I don't get why they cannot accept a regional map, but accept a city map. The map is to show the city relative to its surrounding political entities, not as an attack on the sovereignty of Zamboanga City. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 11:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wish that people behind www.zamboanga.com could join us in our discussion. That way, their point of view won't be one-sided. I say this because I used to share the same point of view. However, with the ongoing discussion and some small corrections on earlier minor errors, I have concluded that the locator map is already fine and dandy. Some points to ponder upon:

  • The people of Zamboanga City do have every right to react (or overeact). This "illegal map depiction" and misinformation of Zamboanga City being part of Zamboanga del Sur have been going on for decades and we, Zamboangeños, do not understand how and why this misinformation continues. We feel that this is certainly offensive against the sovereignity of our chartered city. Personally and as a Zamboangeño, I can relate to www.zamboanga.com's opinions.
  • Misinformation is provocative, hence the "over reaction."
  • They don't join in any of our discussion here, so what they basically know right now about the locator map is insufficient.
  • Let's face it even if we can be biased, when people look up for information about Zamboanga City on the Internet, they would regard www.zamboanga.com and its opinions as more credible than an open and free online encyclopedia. (I used to join the Catholic forums (forums.catholic.com) before and when some people there made reference to Wikipedia as a source, the Wiki's credibility, generally, was a laughing stock. No pun intended here.)
  • It's either we retain the current locator map or change the locator map using the map in the subsection of 'barangays' (Zambofinal_large.jpg). This map seems to be acceptable to www.zamboanga.com. We can also do another locator map, this time showing Zamboanga City within the whole picture of the Philippine archipelago. If we decide to retain the current locator map, the issue won't be resolved, and it's a point against the Wiki because again, credibility is one basis here. If we decide to use the map acceptable to www.zamboanga.com (Zambofinal_large.jpg), we have nothing to lose, it still is a map of Zamboanga City, issue will solved, and everybody's happy!
  • This is definitely not a battle between www.zamboanga.com and Wikipedia. This is about lack of communication and misinformation.

But if the current locator map exist just to satisfy some of us Wikipedians and stir controversy for others, then definitely we are going against the Wikipedia's "Neutral Point Of View" policy.

--Weekeejames 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The locator map is supposed to tell you the relative position of the local government unit within a larger area containing it. A map of the city by itself won't do that. The only other thing left is to put a map of the Philipppines and show the location of Zamboanga City there like what is done for the provinces. That's probably ok but I personally prefer the current one (regional map showing location within the region -- which is what the Manila article does for Manila). Polaron | Talk 21:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So we'd let the Zamboanga POV be applied? Would that violate NPOV? Although I'm in agreeance (sounding like fred durst, eh?) that in independent cities, we could show them in relation with the whole country, that is if someone is willing to redo the maps. --Howard the Duck 14:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Howard, I think you better read Wikipedia's policy on NPOV carefully again. NPOV means showing both sides of an issue without engaging, asserting, and arising debates and controversies. It's not a matter of showing your (and few of us Wikipedians') locator map of Zamboanga City on a regional perspective or a matter of following www.zamboanga.com and many of Zamboangeños' POV. NPOV is about avoiding debates and controversies by showing both sides of the coin. It is actually because of Wikipedia's NPOV policy that I think it's best to change that locator map to show Zamboanga City within the whole Philippine archipelago (national perspective) and not just within the Zamboanga Peninsula (regional perspective). Although I agree that our locator map is already fine, let's face it...it is continously stirring up controversies which is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Who's to fix it...err, the map? Well, the one who created the provoking, err, provocative "locator map". --Weekeejames 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That in its own right is already a burden upon itself, and I would know no one who would be willing to tweak all the maps for the sake of consistency. Since we are showing Zamboanga City in relation to the region, and since this is the only city encountering a map problem (the others certainly don't), we can leave the map as is. It's either an all or nothing deal here. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If a map showing the city in relation with the whole country would solve the problem, then its fine with me. --Howard the Duck 06:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, judging by the standards of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, this "either an all or nothing" or "either mine or yours" reasoning and practice is a violation of the policy. The reason of all these grumbles is simply because Zamboanga City has been continuously and erroneously associated with Zamboanga del Sur province, and this locator map just simply provokes it (not for you and I, but for most people out there, Zamboangeños perhaps). Is it so hard to understand this simple beef? Maybe it is only happening to our city that's why this is the only city that's having a map problem. --Weekeejames 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I am hardly convinced that Zamboanga City should have a locator map in relation to the whole country. Since provinces are the primary subdivisions of the Philippines, they should be located in relation to the whole Philippines. Cities, even if they are independent of any provinces, are still on the same hierarchical level as municipalities. So they should be located within their provinces or if they are independent or provinces, within their regions (e.g., Metro Manila cities) or historically-associated provinces. I don't think Zamboanga City should be given special treatment. Otherwise, we need to update Baguio City and Davao City, at the very least, just to be consistent.
The current locator map for Zamboanga City is actually very neutral already, inasmuch as it shows that the city is not part of any province. Citizens from Zamboanga City cannot deny that they are part of the Zamboanga Peninsula Region. So what's the problem showing Zamboanga City inside the Zamboanga Peninsula Region? I don't get the current problem at all. Let's try this: ask any random person if he thinks the locator map shows that Zamboanga City is in any way subordinate to any of the Zamboanga provinces. I'm willing to bet that he doesn't think so. The current map is already a good compromise on the opposing sides. --seav 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is actually a neutral locator map already. My contention here is that it is still stirring up controversy with www.zamboanga.com. Hence, to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy that map should just be changed. Let Zamboanga City be an exception but not anything special. We can change Zamboanga City's locator map (showing the city in relation to the whole archipelago) without changing all other locator maps just for the sake of this Neutral Point Of View (avoiding controversy). It seems that www.zamboanga.com does not understand what a locator map is in the context of Wikipedians responsible for the Zamboanga City article. This has been like a process from day 1 when indeed, there was a flaw with the original locator map. From the process of editing the map to giving explanatory note on the caption of the locator map, it seems that www.zamboanga.com is no longer complaining about the mis-association of the city with the provinces. From their commentaries on their website, their contention now is basically about a Peninsular Map misrepresenting a City Map. From this, we can conclude that they indeed do not understand what a locator map is. Howard, allow me to edit again the caption of this current locator map. From "Map of Zamboanga City showing its location within the Zamboanga Peninsula region" to "Location of Zamboanga City within the Zamboanga Peninsula". Because this current locator map is indeed not a map of Zamboanga City but a map of the entire Zamboanga Peninsula. Gracias. --Weekeejames 15:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Its not only Zamboanga City that is having problems. See Talk:Cities of the Philippines. --Howard the Duck 06:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Right now, there is a proposal by the Zamboanga Hermosa Development Task Force Group to Congressman Fabian to ask Congress to turn Zamboanga City into Zamboanga Hermosa Province. After all, Zamboanga City's area is more than twice of Metro Manila's. Zamboanga City will remain a city within the city proper, while some barangays will be turned into municipalities with their own mayors. This is to hasten progress and development in Zamboanga City. If this happens, then that map being used right now on the subsection of "barangays" or similar to that will prolly find its way in the infobox as the locator map without even having to show Zamboanga del Norte, Sur and Sibugay. The proposal is being studied by the office of the Congressman of the Lone District of the City of Zamboanga. --Weekeejames 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As of now, it still has to be done. But when it happens, we will update the pages accordingly. --Howard the Duck 06:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Howard, locator maps of TheCoffee have committed serious errors from the locator map of Zamboanga City (has been edited and corrected) to the del Sur locator map (edited and corrected). But Lo and Lookie!

All the locator maps of these municipalities STILL ERRONOUSLY SHOW ZAMBOANGA CITY as part of Zamboanga del Sur province. I think this is a serious error and the one responsible for this should take action and edit those incorrect locator maps as soon as possible. No wonder www.zamboanga.com alleges "cyber terrorism". www.zamboanga.com's criticism --Weekeejames 02:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that too, and that's what I've been saying all along, it would be cumbersome on correcting these things, and perhaps nobody wants to correct all of them. I don't even have Photoshop, I just used trusty ole Paint. --Howard the Duck 04:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you please inform TheCoffee about this error? After all, he is responsible for all of this mess. Gracias. --Weekeejames 11:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've did that already. --Howard the Duck 12:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have worked for hours and hours over a 6-month period making hundreds of maps for every single city and municipality in the Philippines-- something that, to my knowledge, has not been accomplished with any country in the world on the English Wikipedia-- and I get called a terrorist? Ugh... how ungrateful can people get. :/ I treated Zamboanga City no differently than Cebu or Bacolod or any other independent city of the Philippines.
I'll edit the Zamboanga del Sur city/municipality locator maps tomorrow. So, what will it be... (a) Shall I just recolor Zamboanga City from yellow to light brown in all the maps, or (b) shall we zoom in on Zamboanga del Sur? Coffee 13:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
For some or for most people if I might presume, incorrect information, especially sensitive ones, are provocative. It does not matter how many years or decades you have worked on a certain project. The success of your work will depend whether the outcome is true or false, correct or wrong. Take it as a lesson and take it objectively. I think you better do both (a) and (b) and just try to make the locator maps appear like Zamboanga City does NOT exist as far as the provinces of del Sur, del Norte, and Sibugay are concerned. You should know by now that Zamboanga City doesn't have anything to do with those provinces or vice-versa in any aspect. The Zamboanga issues should also give you some hints to look also into other provinces and cities affecting the same issues. Learning is an everyday lesson and we all do err. Good luck. --Weekeejames 13:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this:

This exact representation map of Zamboanga City was intentionally removed by this map terrorist who controls our city's history in Wiki pedia and placed in a non-descript section like a terrorist captured hostage, with no details! The topic is our City and NOT the Peninsula! Make it so you heartless terrorist!!!

OK, can somebody tell them that we would never, ever, EVER use this image on this article's infobox, because you've got to tell where in the world the place is. If you'll replace the map with the one they recommended, then you'd have no clue, lemme repeat, you would have absolutely NO clue whatsoever, where Zamboanga City is. That is a vicinity map, if you're going to a place, you won't show the local map of that place outright, right? You'd show him the place in relation with other places. With that said, I am willing to have a dialogue with the owners of the website, they can even email me (it's on my talk page), or better yet, they can register here, it's FREE, you won't waste a single centavo, and join the discussion. But please, personal attacks is so lame, it makes you look stupid. --Howard the Duck 13:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Howard, if you look at the Zamboanga City article and its infobox, i have edited (again) the locator map's caption, with a reference and an endnote further below the article. Now I have informed them of the developments happening here. Allow me to share here my email to www.zamboanga.com:

To: webmaster@zamboanga.com
 Subject: wikipedia locator map on Zamboanga City

Dear Webmaster / Mr. Frank Maletsky,

Greetings.

As a Wikipedian (and a Zamboangeño), I am one of those who contribute, edit and write articles on Wikipedia including that article on Zamboanga City. As you probably know, Wikipedia is a free and open online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, Wikipedia has guidelines and rules that we follow to see to it that only correct, of good quality and of the neutral point of view articles are written. Wikipedia also has rules that can be enforced against notorious contributors.

Being a Zamboangeño, I have fought (from day 1) for Zamboanga Hermosa against the misrepresentation, misinformation and disinformation regarding our independent chartered city, and the incorrect continuing associations with Zamboanga del Sur and vice-versa.

Your website, www.zamboanga.com has been critical regarding the locator map that has been used on the Zamboanga City article. Please allow me to further explain developments regarding that article that I believe www.zamboanga.com needs to be informed. I guess, there is lack of communication simply because www.zamboanga.com does not engage in our discussion over at Wikipedia. There has been a debate and discussion regarding this issue because we take your criticism seriously.

First, the people working behind the article and locator maps of the different cities and provinces of the Philippines are not solely people from Zamboanga del Sur. I doubt if the contributors who create and edit the locator maps are from Zamboanga del Sur. Hence, the allegation that Zamboanga del Sur is desperately trying to own Zamboanga City is false and unfair to the people of Zamboanga del Sur. Makuhuya siempre con el maga de Zamboanga del Sur.

Second, people from Wikipedia think that www.zamboanga.com is over reacting with the "terrorism" allegation.

Third, the errors of the old locator map was basically because of the ignorance of some contributors regarding our Ciudad de Flores. Because of this, I have been participating on the discussions correcting their ignorance on our chartered city.

Fourth, the incorrect locator maps for Zamboanga City and Zamboanga del Sur have been edited. If you look at the locator maps of Zamboanga City and Zamboanga del Sur, they are now correct and they are no longer associating Zamboanga City to Zamboanga del Sur or vice-versa whatsoever. The colors have been edited and the lines are no longer tracing to anything except that the lines are now only serving to show the borders of the city and the provinces within the Zamboanga Peninsula.

Fifth, what is a locator map? A locator map on Wikipedia is NOT a map of a certain city or a province. A locator map is also NOT a map to represent a certain city or a province. A locator map is a map showing where the exact location of an area is (Zamboanga City for example) on a regional perspective. You might ask why on a regional perspective? Why show the Zamboanga Peninsula? Because it is the least that we can do to show the location of Zamboanga City. Of course we can put a national map or a world map to show where Zamboanga City is, but this Zamboanga Peninsula map is the least we can put to show where Zamboanga City is.

6th, This locator map is not a map of Zamboanga City. I have edited the caption of the locator map from:

Map of Zamboanga City showing its location within the Zamboanga Peninsula region

to:

Location of the City of Zamboanga within the Zamboanga Peninsula region

See the difference. We do not put an exact map of a certain city or province on the Infobox. The Infobox as a Wikipedia template (the template also affects other articles where the template is used) provides a place to put a locator map and NOT an exact representation map. If we put the exact representation map of Zamboanga City, its title should be "map of Zamboanga City" but the template's title on locator maps is "Location" and not map of a city or province.

If we put the exact representation map of Zamboanga City and change its title to "Map of Zamboanga City" then all other locator maps of other cities and provinces on Wikipedia will show on their infobox the title of their locator maps as "Map of Zamboanga City" That would be a general error affecting all other articles on cities and provinces. Again, this infobox template affects other articles where this template is being used.

7th, the infobox and the locator map is not asserting that Zamboanga City is an image of Zamboanga Peninsula or vice-versa as alleged by www.zamboanga.com. Again, the locator map is simply a map to show where Zamboanga City is, at least on a regional perspective (in this case, the Zamboanga Peninsula). The intention of putting a locator map of the Zamboanga Peninsula is simply to show where Zamboanga City is and NOT to misrepresent the city or vice-versa as www.zamboanga.com alleges.

8th, the map that you think is an exact representation of Zamboanga City cannot be placed on the Infobox. This map of Zamboanga City is a map showing the different barangays and therefore, should be placed on the barangay section of the article.

9th, Indeed there are misconceptions about Zamboanga City and yours truly has been correcting and educating (in my own small way) people over at Wikipedia regarding our independent, chartered, and sovereign Zamboanga Hermosa.

Please kindly read and join our discussions:

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Howard_the_Duck#Map_of_Zamboanga_City _on_the_City.27s_infobox

Through here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zamboanga_City

To here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_of_the_Philippines

I personally think that this is just lack of communication between www.zamboanga.com and people at Wikipedia. While we appreciate your comments on your website, we encourage you to join our discussions because that way all of us will understand each other's point of views and opinions without one side accusing the other side of cyber terrorism and such. This way, you and I and Zamboangeños (instead of being so proud and unkind to others) will just help one another in the dessimination of correct information regarding our Zamboanga Hermosa. Muchas Gracias.

kind regards,

Weekeejames @en.wikipedia.org

--Weekeejames 13:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Weekeejames, although I may say I can understand your feelings, especially if my hometown is misrepresented. However, the best way to solve this problem is for them to come here, they won't even have to register. Tell they're side of the story, so we can judge. Also, I'm not from Zamboanga del Sur hehehe. --Howard the Duck 13:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you archive the discussion so early? I mean, give them 'nuff time to read our discussions and make it easy for 'em. :D --Weekeejames 13:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ooops... Restored them now. It's getting really long, and hard to download, especially if you're on dial-up :p --Howard the Duck 13:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Any replys? --Howard the Duck 07:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Check out what www.zamboanga.com has to say as of July 5, 2006 @10:21 PM American Samoa Time Zone: http://www.zamboanga.com/html/terrorism_attack_on_zamboanga_city.htm It shows that they have not really understood what an infobox is and what the locator map means to the infobox in relation to an article. Oh well, I guess not all people can understand what Wikipedia is unless they become wikipedians themselves. :P --Weekeejames 09:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that page, how about if we use thier map? They've given us permission, so why don't we use it? It highlights where Zamboanga City is, anyway. --Howard the Duck 12:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It does show where Zamboanga City is, but it would make this article inconsistent with the articles for every other city/muncipality in the Philippines. I'd rather not reward them for their stubbornness and stupidity. Coffee 13:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
<Rolls over the floor, laughing really hard>. Might as well remove the note. --Howard the Duck 13:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map again

Can anyone create a new map that'll include the whole region (including the whole ZDN and Basilan)? --Howard the Duck 09:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hispanicized majority?

How true is this statement in the article: "The city's ethnic composition consist of 85% Spanish-Filipino..."? Are we saying here that the huge majority of Zamboangueños are of full or partial Spanish descent? 210.213.179.156 03:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That statement is false. It has caught my eyes before. I would have edited this part of the article with a proper reference had I done a local research. Alas, I'm not in Zamboanga City! Allow me to do something about this. :) --Weekeejames 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of date

Some information are really out of date. Information about power, water and investments are dating back since 1995. This cannot be applicable anymore because it's 2006. (This comment was typed in December so that just means that it's going to be 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mildrckfr (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Chavacano speakers

Do all the inhabitants of this city speak Chavacano, or do I just have mistaken information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.170.122 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Silly question. It's like asking: "Do all Americans in the United States speak American English?" --Weekeejames 04:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No...you got me wrong. Let me rephrase that: Is Chavacano the virtually undisputed language of interpersonal communication in Zamboanga City, just like Tagalog is for Parañaque, given that Zamboanga City is known for its brand of Chavacano? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.178.12 (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Of course, a big YES! That's why El Ciudad de Zamboanga is now commercially packaged by the local government as "Asia's Latin City"!!! If it weren't for Chavacano and so much Spanish heritage, it would be a big shame to brand the city as such. LOL! BTW, come to Zamboanga, experience how its like and be another Señor Juan Cuadraro Sr., the Spaniard who decided to stay after the colonial period, who wrote: "No te vayas, no te vayas de Zamboanga Que me puedes, que me puedes olvidar..." Please register and sign your name with four tildes (~~~~). Gracias! --Weekeejames 10:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we really need excerpts of Zamboanga City's charter?

The whole information about the city's charter should be folded into the history section. --seav 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/a/m/Talk%7EZamboanga_City_ee82.html"