Talk:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Arroyo's politics, appointments, economics, etc. Article talk pages are not the proper places for this. If you really insist, go to an internet message board, NOT HERE.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Alston Probe

I have added the latest update on the Alston-UN probe on the Melo Commission and the extrajudicial killings, and I'd like to know if the Philippine Star can be counted as a credible source. Franck Drake 15:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it has the second highest readership among the country's broadsheet newspapers. Certainly credible. TheCoffee 02:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One important witness Alston's, Cheche Bustamante-Gandinao, was killed on March 11, 2007. "She was witness to the killing last month - of her father-in-law, Dalmacio, then the provincial Bayan Muna chairman. She had earlier told media she feared for her life. - The murder last Saturday was committed just a few meters away from a military detachment in Sitio Nabuolan, Barangay Guinalaban in Mindoro Oriental." [1] http://www.tribune.net.ph/20070313/headlines/20070313hed1.html I think this is an important information because it shows the difficulty to get witnesses. For me the Daily Tribune is a very clear and true paper because it always reports both sides though its very clear in the opinion (for democracy and constitution, against manipulations, also very critical to the present government. 194.113.40.41 15:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (16 March 2007).

216.99.39.34 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I think the Alston report should be mentioned in the Human Rights section of the page, as it speaks directly to claims made by the administration and the Melo commission and is about Human Rights.

[edit] Clean-up Sections on Human Rights and State of Emergency

As stated in the reasoning why this article was not accepted as a feature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gloria_Macapagal-Arroyo clean-up is badly needed. Sources and style should be discussed here on how we can improve both content and accountability. I can work on the Human Rights and State of Emergency sections. 15:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

This article uses highly biased sources. A president who is probably not elected has no interest that the truth comes out. But this article follows to a far degree the official statements and tries to suppress the view of the opposition. Edsa II (2001): Mrs. Arroyos disclosec in a video recording that this was a well prepared putch including certain parts of the military, deceiving the church to get their support etc. - during the hearings against detained president Estrada it turned out that it was Estrada who refused to be bribed. Arroyo did immediately after her grip to power. - the well known "Chavit" Singson disclosed himself as a lyer. He could not even put the money in the boxes (they were much to small) as he claimed he gave them to Estrada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.113.40.41 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Some of the bias has, by now, been removed.--Pine oak 02:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased and Unbiased Point of View

(Wikipedia or whoevers in charge of this article, please do not delete this, you are suppressing our freedom to speak our mind, whether it is biased and unbiased it dosen't matter. To think this is an unessessary discussion is suppressing our right to speak our mind.)

I also think that it is biased. People just don't see what good things GMA has done for this country. I would be really happy if her great projects would be included here. Jamskienetopia 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Jamskienetopia 16:57 March 5, 2007

Biased? My God! Where have you been! Look at our country! Do you see anything positive? My God! You must be blind! Look, Philippine History is repeating itself, look at the late President Marcos, he did "good things for the country" but that was all a scam! He changed our form of government, to parlementary, just like what Gloria is doing, and in parlament, Gloria can become a dictator, like Marcos. Gloria is doing what Marcos was doing back in the 70s, please read Philippine History, and try to compare Marcos to Gloria, better yet, compare both Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos to Gloria, because she's the imbodyment of both of them! And if you enjoyed yourself during Marcos' Martial Law, "May God Have Mercy on Your Soul." - Greg - 12:24PM - 16 March 2007

How dumb can you get. Almost every single thing you said is inaccurate, I feel embarassed for you. You don't see the stock market near all time highs, the strong peso at 6 year highs, the 5 consecutive years of stable economic growth, inflation at the lowest level in decades? The only bad things happening are because Gloria's enemies are doing their best to tear the Philippines to pieces. You better keep your mouth shut before you make a fool of yourself any further. - JC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Inaccurate? Ferdinand Marcos did alot of good in his first term in office, the Philippines' was even declared, "Asia's Strongest Economy." But that all ended, in 1972, when he declared Proclamation No. 1081, Martial Law, then in the next year, 1973, Marcos proclaimed a new constitution that instituted a parliamentary system, thus making him a Prime Minister, thus allowing him to stay in power, until "PEOPLE POWER." You say inaccurate? Now we look at Gloria Arroyo, showed a lot of promise, like Marcos did, but just last year declared Proclamation Number 1017, just like Marcos did. Marcos declared Martial law to quell increasing civil strife and the threat of communist takeover following a series of bombings in Manila, he also quell increasing opposition against him, suppressed the freedom of the press, made unwarranted arrests against all that opposed him, when Gloria declared 1017, she did the same, she suppressed her opposition, the freedom of the press, made unwarranted arrests against all that opposed her. Just this year, the Philippines was declared "Most Corrupt Government in Asia," now you tell me if that's progress. Now she wants to change our form of government to a parliamentary system, making Gloria a Prime Minister, allowing her to stay in power, just like Marcos, you tell me my information is inaccurate, maybe it is YOU who should "keep your mouth shut before you make a fool of yourself any further." - Greg - 03:20PM - 18 March 2007

Wikipedia is not a message board, a soapox, or just any online site that you can think of where you can express your personal opinions. Find another place where you can criticize or praise PGMA, regardless of your political convictions. This talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. --- Tito Pao 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you discuss the article, without discussing the subject of the article? --- Greg - 10:27AM - 24 March 2007

We should limit discussion on grammar and POV issues, not on whether PGMA is the greatest or worst president. --Howard the Duck 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

... but the user expects to read the truth. And if its too difficult he wants to understand why. Imo the evidence goes more and more against Mrs. Arroyo, as Archbishop Cruz wrote (lying, cheating, stealing...) 194.113.40.41 13:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If the evidence goes more against PGMA, then one cannot just sugar-coat the evidence, just to make this article unbiased. Like 194.113.40.41 said, "the user expects to read the truth." -- Greg - 11:00PM - 28 March 2007

I beleave the article should be about her life story, her carea and (if proven) corupition. It is not a political manafesto. The talk page is for digusing stuff such as an article's POV, bias, sources and quality. Talk pages are not a political soap-box either.--Pine oak 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Things could be a lot worse, at least it's not as bad in the Phillipines as it is in Zimbabwie, so it's not all bad. --Freetown 05:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the POV has, by now, been removed.--Pine oak 02:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are always three sides to every story, in this case: lozada's side, gma's side and the truth. Hopefully the Philippine senate would be able to solve the puzzle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.36.187 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think the senate can give us some light about the issues because as long as some senators have their own personal agenda no puzzle can be solve. I think as a encyclopedia articles that should be written here should be about her life story as Pine oak says,and program and laws passed during her service in the government. All allegations about her crime should always be labeled as accusations because as of now they are still allegations it would be really biase on her part if we says things that still don't have proof.58.69.218.181 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To those who insist on discussing the *subject* instead of the *article*

This is a generic, final warning to those involved in the last few subtopics who still do not get the point that Howard and I, titopao, have been saying all along.

Wikipedia is not a forum, a message board, a soap box or, for that matter, Wikipedia is not the Plaza Miranda. If your only purpose on making all those rambling statements is to write in your criticisms or praises (in case you're from the other camp) on this talk page but have no plans in helping improve the article, find yourself another website. I don't care what your politics are, and I don't give a damn if you're pro/anti Gloria or Erap (it doesn't matter anyway), but if your debates won't help us make a better article, then don't do it here.

If you have a point to make and want to have it included on the article, make sure you name your sources. For that matter, you cannot use blogs, forums, message boards, social networking sites or other similar self-published site as sources, per the external links policy. (The acceptable exceptions would be official blogs and official websites.) Unsourced statements on any article will be challenged, and if found controversial or libellous, will immediately be deleted, per policy...if not by me, then by other editors.

For the users concerned (Greg (210.23.188.87), 192.127.94.7, 194.113.40.41), the standard user warnings have been placed on each of your user talk pages. I have placed higher-level warnings because you still persisted in engaging in unproductive debate despite adequate warnings by me and Howard. All of you have been duly advised. --- Tito Pao 05:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Touché. Wikipedia is not Plaza Miranda. Very good hehe. --Howard the Duck 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will stop posting my political opinions, but may I be frank, I think this is very unfair, you are suppressing my right to freedom of speech, OK, I will not post anymore of my political opinions, I would like to say something else, I think this article will not be truthful, because the one's incharge of this article will not listen to as you call it "political rantings." One more question before I go, do you know websites were I can express my "political rantings?" -- Greg - 5:10PM - 29 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.84.20.21 (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy in the sense that we're here to build encyclopedic articles, not political diatribes. This is why we emphasize that discussions should be about improving the article, and also why we discourage discussion about anything not related to the building of the article in question. We're here to discuss how to make the article better, not how to make the President better (although I share your view that we deserve a better government). --- Tito Pao 11:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You can use PinoyExchange.com. Wikipedia isn't the right place to do this. We all have a freedom to express as long as it's within legal lines, but Wikipedia is not the place. Talk pages are for the article, not the article's subject. So at 2006 FIFA World Cup, we discuss how to improve the article, not to discuss how England and Sven Goran Ericsson chokes big time. --Howard the Duck 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
For starters, if you can give us news articles about PGMA and/or Erap, whether it casts them in a positive or negative light, you can use the information on those articles and have them properly referenced. The more, the merrier (or, as my classmate used to say, "the merrier, the better"). Just that, make sure it's not an op-ed piece (definitely a no-no) or (if it can be avoided) one of those tabloids with scantily clad starlets. --- Tito Pao 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea though, to be fair to the Arroyo supporters, in the article, put up a section for the Anti-Gloria side and another section for the Pro-Gloria side, so that the article will be balanced, I've seen this in other articles. Just making a suggestion. -- Greg - 12:07PM - 30 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.1.98.134 (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
That is what we did at 2006 state of emergency in the Philippines. If anyone can contribute to the article go ahead, but please, debating on talk pages endlessly achieve nothing. --Howard the Duck 09:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, make sure that you can back it up, so that other editors will not mark the edits as original research (which is a no-no). --- Tito Pao 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rights come with responsibilities. If you have a right to freedom of speech, it's your responsibility to follow the rules, and not vandalize, and/or put libelous statements. 122.53.102.230 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] economy

Dear "TheCoffee", you always delete economic matters etc. if they are critical to Mrs. Arroyo. But this is not a government board. If something is wrong please wright or correct it.

I found many very critical voices and they are in accordance with my experience and that of my friends.

Here again quotes from Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics, Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), Archbishop Cruz.

"But if you consider the opinion of the opposition it seems to be quite different: - - - According to Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics the comparison between Estrada and Arroyo as shown above is wrong. "The 1998 economic performance should not be attributed to Estrada since policy action work with a lag. Estrada assumed office in July 1998, amid the East Asian crisis of 1997, which he had nothing to do with. In short, Estrada should be responsible for the economy’s performance in 1999 and 2000 and Arroyo from 2001 to date, since she assumed power in January 2001. GDP: Estrada—3.9 percent Arroyo—4.5 (the difference is the election spending in 2004 and the increasing remittances of the OFWs. As percentage of GDP, remittances have increased to 13.5 percent of GDP. But why should Arroyo get credit for these remittances? Filipinos have been leaving the country because not enough jobs are being created at home!)[2].

- In a Speach to the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) Melendres said: "What happened to our biggest textile manufacturers? U-Tex (Universal Textiles) and Gentex (General Textiles) were forced to close. And that includes tire manufacturer Sime Darby." - "Thanks but no thanks to Mrs. Arroyo and then President Fidel Ramos but now we are importing agricultural products." [3].

- Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz added: "Millions of Filipinos precisely suffer from joblessness. The other millions of workers receive starvation salaries. The rest of the million Filipinos have to leave their homes and families in order to find work abroad." [4].194.113.40.41 14:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting these additions is because they don't reflect the actual consensus view of the economy, just a collection of skewed views from individuals. Benjamin Diokno was Erap's finance secretary, of course he'll take an Erap-defending anti-Gloria position. That second blurb about closing textile manufacturers and agriculture imports lacks context and is probably insignificant in the big picture. And the third blurb... Oscar Cruz isn't even an economist, just a rabid anti-Gloria nut. TheCoffee 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
nobody has the autonomy of truth.. truth is different from our individual point of view. wikipedia is a venue to share information based on existing facts and supported by literature and not by mere opinions. this is not an editorial board. 24.193.29.5 10:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear 24.193.29.5, Why you added "Headline text ===="? I hope we all want that the truth has a chance to come out. And that means that both sides have a chance to share their knowledge. I hope that this time there will not happen so much cheatings during and after the elections like 2004 (the believe of cheatings are not mere opinions but based on existing facts. and supported by literature)Truth111 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{NPOV}}

If no one objects I'll remove them. The article is neutral enough for me. --Howard the Duck 16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I object. Only if you and others don't remove the critical parts (f.e. "economy") and the parts of the cheating of the elections 2004, and add a report about the unresolved parts of the power grip 2001 I could agree.Truth111 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that I've rarely edited the article (go see the history tab) so don't accuse me. As for economy and your other demands, it won't be that hard isn't it? There are lots of website around... --Howard the Duck 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
(To Truth111)' For the nth time on this very talk page: this is not a forum, so please save your comments elsewhere. If you have gripes about GMA and want to include them on the article, make sure you cite your sources appropriately. Thank you. --- Tito Pao 01:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need statistics for lack of jobs being the principal reason that people leave the country

I removed the sentence about lack of jobs being the principal cause of people leaving the country. We need statistics to back this up rather than claims from an economist who used to work for Estrada. If I'm not mistaken, low wages are the principal reason for people wanting to leave the country, and that's not exactly something you can blame on the government. In short, many of the people leaving, already have jobs, but decide that they need to earn more to help their families. If you can provide an impartial source that says bluntly that the people leaving are jobless, then we can return that sentence. --Edward Sandstig 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

-Perhaps you are right in a formal manner. But the increase of the OWFs is at any case a sign that the economy worsens for most people. Me and many friends are personally concerned and pretty angry because we have to support meanwhile even for daily needs. See statistics and surveys about the hunger problem, the medicine problem - a hospital refused to make an operation after an accident without confirmation from abroad to take the fees (the confirmation came too late). For me this means that Arroyos government failed in vital parts.Truth111 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "to support meanwhile even for daily needs"? And kindly elaborate on this whole hospital asking for confirmation before conducting an operation. I still don't see how any of this is relevant, stuff like people not getting proper medical care, or people leaving the country for greener pastures has been happening even in Marcos' time. Please don't return the passage unless you can provide a real source. --Edward Sandstig 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jose Pidal

An anonymous user with the IP address 203.177.106.235 removed the paragraph on Jose Pidal stating it was unreferenced. I have returned the paragraph and added links to an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and a blog entry from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. When you find something that lacks a source, request a citation first, then remove it if no source materializes after a number of weeks. --Edward Sandstig 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Let's open an offcal Wiki photo gallary on her at the bottom oof the page. There are so many pictures.--Pine oak 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) It would be nice.--86.25.54.205 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To few pictures in the commons.--86.29.251.10 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are too few.--Pine oak 02:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Life?

No mention of her husband and their children? Not even a link directing to Mike Arroyo? -Leoisiah 06:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's covered in the "Early life" section. TheCoffee 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

TheCoffee is biased... probably Arroyo's personal assistant or something. are you gonna erase this now?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.26.197 (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed 2 links to his Wiki-page.--Pine oak 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, fix the contradictory pronouns dotting the article. "He" denotes a male. "She" denotes a female. - Mirlac

[edit] 2007 SONA

BBC reported this event today.

--Florentino floro 13:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 Ambition

In her SONA speech, Arroyo categorically announced her candidacy for the 2010 presidential (or prime minister) race. Even if she promised to step down when her six-year term ends in three years, Arroyo served notice that she should not be treated as a lame-duck President: "I am not an obstacle to anyone's ambition. But make no mistake." In the 56-minute SONA speech at the joint opening of the 14th Congress at the Batasab in Quezon City, a beaming Arroyo, dressed in a red terno, said she "will not stand idly by when anyone gets in the way of the national interest and tries to block the national vision. From where I sit, I can tell you, a President is always as strong as she wants to be."

--Florentino floro 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're putting in your own interpretation of the article. I've edited to reflect what's written in the Inquirer and in the included excerpts of her SONA. --Edward Sandstig 10:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the title "2010 Ambition" is bias. The strong words in her SONA do not necessarily lead to her trying to stay in office longer nor have I seen any clear actions on her part to do so. While she may desire that, she has not clearly moved to do so, or at least I haven't seen it. I have edited the subtitle and the content to be more neutral.--Bruce Hall 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] She joked

President Arroyo joked during a speech in Subic Bay. She joked about being a "congresswoman" in Pampanga. A-yao 06:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ran for senator in 1987?

It was recently added to the article that GMA ran for senator in 1987 and placed 24th. It was backed by this reference, but I'm doubtful... I've looked up many sources and never heard of her running for senator in 1987. If you re-add this line to the article, could you please find a different reference? I suspect this editorial reference got the facts wrong. Thanks. TheCoffee 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I did not find a different source too. Probably you are right.Truth222 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK.. she did not run for senator in '87.. geez people.. it was cory and marcos' time then.. gloria was still perfecting her scheme then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.26.197 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ousting of Estrada/How Arroyo became President

Okay, ousting of Estrada. For Christ's sake... Gloria Macapagal's loyalists(on her payroll of course) are trying so hard to hide the fact that she indeed "stole" and i repeat "stole" the presidency. the allegations made against President Estrada we're based on false or non-existent premises. The charges that we're filed against him were not supported by any substantial evidences. Plus, okay. He did not resign nor was he impeached. the constitution of the Philippines says and i will paraphrase, that the vice president may only take over if the president 1. dies... 2. is impeached.. and lastly 3. if he resigns. NONE of these happened at all. Estrada left The presidential palace so that he could rest in his home. There were no resignation letters. With the help of the media and other powerful friends including the chief justice of the philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo snatched the presidency. She was sworn in illegally. How can another individual be sworn in as president when the other one is still active? i do not know why there is so much debate about this issue even from supposedly objective observers from abroad. and The Coffee (username from wikipedia) please edit your own stuff ok? i know you are a gloria loyalist and have deleted some of the truthful negative posts about gloria and her chronies before... and all you others.. thanks...

p.s. i was there when all of this happenned you know. i love the philippines but i cannot stand the sight of it now. it's condition, no matter how hard we try to make it sound pretty... is in fact not pretty... not at all.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.26.197 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I want to share a quote from the Daily Tribune (08/30/2006) http://www.tribune.net.ph/20060830/commentary/20060830com1.html that seems very important for the historical discussion about 2001; "The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, after having given the documentary on the life and times of the now detained leader a triple X rating, thus banning it from being shown publicly, has consented to the showing of this documentary, on condition that some three-fourths of the documentary be cut out.

Not surprisingly, the portions that the censors board wanted cut were those that show Gloria Arroyo, caught on video, in a forum of a civil society group, proudly confessing that she had, a year before the ouster, plotted to oust Estrada, along with some five groups of treacherous military officials whom she had even identified and congratulated; the video clip of then Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and his clique of justices that went to the Edsa Shrine, where Davide was distinctly heard as saying he would be swearing in Gloria as the acting President but later swore her in as President, along with the item on then Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban, as recounted in his book, Reforming the Judiciary, of his and Davide’s early morning plan to swear in Gloria, even when they were aware of the fact that there was no vacancy in the high office, as Estrada had clearly not resigned and other documented evidence of the deliberate collapse of the impeachment trial; the fact that the second envelope, which the then opposition claimed contained “damning evidence” that the Jose Velarde account was Estrada’s, only to be discovered later, when the envelope was opened at the Senate, that it contained proof to the contrary. It was Jaime Dichaves who owned the account, as the bank documents in that envelope showed." Who knows more?Truth222 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ph pres arroyo.jpg

Image:Ph pres arroyo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation #48

is a 404. --75.85.14.12 (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health Issues and NOTICE

I think my earlier edits on health were deleted. But now, this mysterious illness again surfaced. It is a FACT that Arroyo is sick. And later on, if like the Litany of Health Curse in the GMA cabinet would turn to epidemic proportions, like starting with Bunye, to Raul Gonzales kidney, it is very sad that if this HEALTH edit of mine again will be deleted, I would not be credited with my prophecy of GMA's later hurting. Vide my impeccable predictions on: [1] and [ http://judgefloro.blogs.friendster.com/luis_armand_angel_judge_f/2007/11/memorandum_of_d.html]

Now, HOW can this article be NEUTRAL if this HEALTH subsection is not RETAINED. In several autos of world leaders, Health section is the most important encyclopedia neutral article.

Hence, I notify the ADMIN to watch this health section, lest it be deleted again. Sincerely

--Florentino floro (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Your gov't is nothing but a complete corrupt group- shame on you- you are a clear view of people that does'nt have any conscience at all!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.237.255 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Report about a meeting with former President F.Ramos and the OWFs

I remember there was a report about a meeting with former President F.Ramos with interesting informations on the desolate situation of OWFs. I did not find anymore here or in the archive. Who knows where I can find again? Truth222 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truth222's edits

“ Estrada wanted to avoid victims and left office ”

- Can this actually be confirmed? Do we have mind-readers that can confirm that this really was the reason that Estrada left office? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First thank you very much for seriously answering. Edsa II/III: I remember that Estrada gave no order to shoot on the people, but Arroyo. Further he himself wrote to the senate that he temporarily would leave the palace to solve the case peaceful (I confess I dont remember the exact reason and dates of this writing).Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A statement from Estrada claiming that was the reason isn't really enough especially when you consider that he had already lost support of the AFP and the PNP. It would be like a boxer who lost a match saying that he lost because he let the other guy win. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There are statements of his lawyers too.
Do you really want to say that the army would disobey the elected president? At this time his name was Estrada! Then it was a mutiny or even a putch with the support of the army.Truth222 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
“ She was elected in pretty doubtful elections ”

- This is an opinion many Filipinos share, and certainly the Garci tapes and such lend credence to this, but "pretty doubtful" isn't the sort of thing you read in an encyclopaedia. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


“ Governor from Ilocos Sur and close friend of Arroyo. ”

- Don't really see how this is relevant considering he was reportedly a "friend" of Estrada as well.[2][3][4] --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think his relation to Arroyo is essential. The famaly ties are close. F.E. Arroyo is Godmother for his children. That could explain his obviously wrong allegations. In the Senate hearings 2006 he could not even put the money into the boxes.
Later the Sandibayan Court used his wrong allegations only against Estrada but not against the other accused. They prevented Estradas laywers to ask him questions as it should be.Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Which allegations specifically? If the other defendants were not party to those specific allegations, why would the SB acuse them of such? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
“ During senate hearings later (2006) it turned out that some of the important presumptions were wrong. (Compare http://www.tribune.net.ph/20060330/headlines/20060330hed1.html) ”

- I fail to see how that sentence referencing an article in The Tribune fits in with the preceding paragraph. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It concernes the main crime.Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I read through the article and basically all I saw was Estrada trying to pass the blame to Singson. The sentence isn't appropriate in a paragraph detailing Arroyo's succession to the presidency. Also, please be a little more careful with the sources you use. The Tribune is known to be biased towards Estrada, if you don't believe that, then please provide a single article where they have criticized the former president. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
“ But if you consider the opinion of the opposition it seems to be quite different: According to Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics the comparison between Estrada and Arroyo as shown above is wrong. "The 1998 economic performance should not be attributed to Estrada since policy action work with a lag. Estrada assumed office in July 1998, amid the East Asian crisis of 1997, which he had nothing to do with. In short, Estrada should be responsible for the economy’s performance in 1999 and 2000 and Arroyo from 2001 to date, since she assumed power in January 2001. GDP: Estrada—3.9 percent Arroyo—4.5 (the difference is the election spending in 2004 and the increasing remittances of the OFWs. As percentage of GDP, remittances have increased to 13.5 percent of GDP. But why should Arroyo get credit for these remittances? Filipinos have been leaving the country because not enough jobs are being created at home!)(Manila Times December 11, 2006) ”

- We've discussed this a number of times. I attempted to at least leave mention of the opposition's view on this a while back. As to the increase in number of OFWs and claiming that people are leaving because of lack of jobs, you've failed to provide statistics that prove that this is the case. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Economy: There was already a version that showed both sides as you mention above. Why it was removed?
Newer quote: "She earned for the Philippines a world wide title as the 2nd most corrupt country in the world. The World Bank (WB), the US Department of State, and just last week, the Asian Development Bank (ABD) have supported this finding, calling attention to the “worsening” corruption in the country."
Or: Tribune Thursday, 13 March 2008: Former gov’t finance officials: Economy ‘not gaining momentum’ Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why it was removed, but it's possible that whoever removed it found the section too lengthy or inappropriate for the article. As to corruption, we should note that Pulse Asia's survey for one, was defined by public opinion and refers to corruption in the Philippines as a whole, in contrast to Estrada and Marcos being listed in the world's top 10 most corrupt world leaders in 2004.[5][6][7][8] I'm hoping some of the other contributors will chime in so we can decide whether to reintroduce the section containing some of Diokno's comments. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probaly for the best if they were added to give a sence of copleatness

--Peiet B.V. Janssen (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video with confession Arroyos that she had, a year before the ouster, plotted to oust Estrada

Showing Mrs. Arroyo, "caught on video, in a forum of a civil society group, proudly confessing that she had, a year before the ouster, plotted to oust Estrada. It seems its no falsification. Of course that would change the whole view on the events of 2001." Daily Tribune 02/20/2008: ‘We went from frying pan to fire’ Edsa II a mistake, says CBCP head "The church issued yesterday what amounted to a public apology for its pivotal role in installing then Vice President Gloria Arroyo to the presidency in a 2001 military-backed revolt that ousted popularly elected President Joseph Estrada."Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A link to this video could be an interesting addition to the article. Do we have one? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am from the Philippines and call me ignorant but is this video really existing? Because I haven't heard of it, sorry.58.69.218.181 (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither have I, but if it does exist, it would be interesting to see it. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Tsismis yan. Daily Tribune is an opposition mouthpiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.70 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Her Excellency"

Ashoroman (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)The term "Her Excellency" is used when addressing a high ranking official from a foreign country directly, either orally or in writing. In an encyclopedic article, it sounds only deferential and sycophantic, if not outright ridiculous. It should be deleted.Ashoroman (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.26.197 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph about Lagdameo's disappointment in Arroyo in "Succession" section

I removed the paragraph because it isn't appropriate to the section. The section deals with Arroyo taking over the presidency and it being declared legal by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court later declares that the take-over was illegal, then fine, we can ammend that section with that information. A religous leader giving their opinion and expressing disappointment over the aftermath of EDSA II, however, just isn't relevant to issues of succession. Even former presidents such as Aquino and Ramos expressing disappointment wouldn't be relevant to the section since they do not affect whether or not the decision was ruled legal. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are consequent you must delete almost the whole paragraph. The "people power" also is irrelevant for the court and was not possible without the deceived support of the church leaders. Further: Read the decision of the court, it sounds partly like yellow press and would never be adequat to international standards.Truth222 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
First, the term "people power" isn't used in the paragraph, second, the first paragraph has everything to do with how she came to power. I won't be reverting for now, since we've already both violated the 3-revert-rule. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph doesn't belong in that section, or anywhere in the article. It makes the section biased, and it's obvious that adding it is only an attempt to sway people's opinions. It is best to present facts of the events, not people's opinions and spin-- otherwise every article about a political leader will be filled with quotations of people's opinions of them. TheCoffee (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Health section

We need a health section here: why? Health section is a must in heads of state. It is not news but real deal, since if a President dies or is incapacitated, the very first news on the hospitalization. I added news on this but they were deleted. So, I hope that we have a health section on this:[9]. I ask all of you: had you known of any President who had been more hospitalized than Gloria? Oh, I am sure not. ---Florentino floro (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A possible adition

The growing human rights crisis The New People's Army (NPA) groups known as "Sparrow Units" were active in the mid-1980s, killing government officials, police personnel, military members, and anyone else they targeted for elimination. They were also supposedly part of an NPA operation called "Agaw Armas" (Filipino for "Stealing Weapons "), where they raided government armories as well as stealing weapons from slain military and police personnel. A low level civil war with south Moslems, Al-Qaeda sympathizers and communist insurgents has led to a general break down of law and order. The Philippines government has promised to curb the killings, but is itself implicated in many of the killings.[5]

Extrajudicial Killings Summit

The 22nd PUNO Supreme Court is set to hold a National Consultative Summit on extrajudicial killings on July 16 and 17, 2007 at the Manila Hotel. Invited representatives from the three branches of the government will participate (including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the PNP, CHR, media, academe, civil society and other stakeholders).

Puno will give the keynote speech and closing remarks. Puno searches for major solutions to solve forced disappearances.

During the first day of the summit, the speakers will present their respective papers comprising significant inputs from their respective sectors, while on the second day, the participants will break out into 12 groups (chaired by a Justice) and take part in a workshop. Local and international observers (the diplomatic corps and representatives from various international organizations) will be accredited.

Puno announced that "the summit highlight will be a plenary session where each of the 12 groups shall report to the body their recommended resolutions. The reports and proposals will be synthesized and then transmitted to the concerned government agencies for appropriate action".

The earlier slated Malacañang-sponsored "Mindanao Peace and Security Summit (July 8-10, 2007 at Cagayan de Oro City), focussed on how to make the anti-terror law, or the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007, more acceptable to the public.[6][7]

On July 16, 2007, Justices, activists, militant leaders, police officials, politicians and prelates attended the Supreme Court's two-day summit at the Manila Hotel in Manila City to map out ways to put an end to the string of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. Bayan was set to launch their "silent protest", but expressed support for the high court's initiative. Director Geary Barias, chief of the police's anti-killings Task Force Usig, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez, re-elected party-list Representatives Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna) and Crispin Beltran (Anakpawis) attended. Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno said that the "National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Forced Disappearances: Searching for Solutions," would help stop the murders. Delegates were given 12 to 15 minutes each to share their insights and knowledge about the matter. Yniguez accused the government of failing to actively pursue investigations on the hundreds of killings and the Catholic Church was alarmed that victims have been denied their "fundamental right" to live.

Based on Yniguez-church's count, the number of victims of extrajudicial killings has reached 778, while survivors of "political assassinations," was pegged at 370. He also noted 203 "massacre" victims, 186 people who involuntarily disappeared, 502 tortured, and others who were illegally arrested. Yniguez similarly criticized the government's alleged insistence on implementing its Oplan Bantay Laya I and II (the military's counter-insurgency operation plans which militants have said consider legal people's organizations as targets).

Meanwhile, Bayan urged the Supreme Court to "check serious threats to civil liberties and basic freedoms" including the anti-terror law or the Human Security Act of 2007, which took effect on July 15 despite protests from leftist groups.

Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr. will join Bayan and other leftist groups as petitioners in their formal pleading before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the law. Human rights lawyer Atty. Edre Olalia of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) will serve as lead counsel. Bayan chair Carol Araullo said the respondents will include members of the Anti-Terrorism Council headed by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Raul Gonzalez. Earlier, [CBCP president Angel Lagdameo] pointed out at least 5 provisions of the law that may threaten civil liberties: Sec. 19 allows detentions of mere suspects for more than three days in the event of an actual or terrorist attack, while Section 26 allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, and prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others; Sec. 39 allows seizure of assets while Sec. 7 allows surveillance and wiretapping of suspects; Sec. 26 allows the investigation of bank deposits and other assets.[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs Flora Fiona Kriesha Mckay (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Well?--Peiet B.V. Janssen (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EDSA III uprising

I will again delete the- propably – wrong info with the policemen. No quote says something like this:

NYT: "...resulting in three deaths and more than a hundred injuries.” Published: May 2, 2001 "...Four people died and more than 100 were wounded in the clashes between security forces and rioters.” Published: May 7, 2001 CNN: "...Four people died and more than 100 people were wounded" May 7, 2001 Web posted at: 12:55 AM EDT (0455 GMT) The question must be: Why did neither the military nor the police shoot during EDSA II?

1. Estrada gave no order to shoot, or an order not to shoot. (Compare the statements of his lawyers 2. As user Edward Sandstig assumes, the police and the army would not obey the elected president during EDSA II. Then it would be a mutiny or even a putch with the support of the army.

"A statement from Estrada claiming that was the reason isn't really enough especially when you consider that he had already lost support of the AFP and the PNP. It would be like a boxer who lost a match saying that he lost because he let the other guy win. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)"

The NYT article specifically states that "Two police officers and one protester were killed during the clashes". It's on page 2, and here's a direct link. It's in the second paragraph if you're still having trouble finding it. As to whether or not Estrada gave the order to shoot, that isn't what was being debated. You had originally claimed that "Estrada wanted to avoid victims and left office", which is something which can't be proven and smacks of POV. Whether you could consider EDSA II a putsch (or coup d'etat) really depends on the level of participation by the military. If their principal contribution was not acting, then I don't think it qualifies. If evidence does come out however, such as the video you were previously talking about, then perhaps it would qualify. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)