Talk:Manila Peninsula rebellion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manila Peninsula rebellion article.
Article policies
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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Warning THIS IS NOT A FORUM about the event! Any off-topic discussions may be removed.

This is turning point if Philippine History. With bated breath, our nation awaits more spiritual events complementing this, in view of the CURSE that envelopes our Judiciary and corrupt officials. This article and related ones must be further cleaned up and the links corrected and added.

--Florentino floro (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the source of this information; "At 4:55pm, Glass on the windows had been broken to allow the dispersal of tear gas to those holed up inside the hotel. Afterwards, an exchange of fire was heard between the military and the Magdalo group. A tank had entered the hotel lobby, with the soldiers pouring in to the hotel." --Ph33rspace (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's on live local TV. Internet news sites won't be updating that fast. --Howard the Duck 09:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] insert wikinews box?

how 'bout this? {{wikinews|WHATS THE ARTICLE TITLE?}} †Bloodpack† 10:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tense?

I noticed that most of the tense used here are past tense. I thought we are to use present tense as per wiki MoS? †Bloodpack† 11:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

it's done already so i think past tense will be fine. --Howard the Duck 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
also, it's now November 30, I guess I'll change itMoogle 12 (talk)

[edit] Title

Shouldn't this rather be at 2007 Philippine coup d'état attempt, in line with other coup attempts? Or has "Manila Peninsula Mutiny" so quickly become a proper noun...? —Nightstallion 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Legally, the crime or felony committed is Rebellion or inciting to Sedition, under our Revised Penal Code, for which reason Sec. Raul Gonzales ordered the preliminary investigation and forthwith filing of the proper charges or criminal information against all the accused. Of course, Judge Pimentel cited them in contempt of court but that is under Rule 71, Rules of Court. So, coup d'etat cannot be used as title since they cannot be charged legally and technically of the same; even Sen. Gringo Honasan was charged not as coup plotter but of Rebellion.

--Florentino floro (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See WT:PINOY#2007 Manila Peninsula Standoff -- we've barnstorming for what would be a good title for this. Also, Trillanes loves high-end places of slumber so his first "mutiny" (when he was still in active duty) happened in Oakwood condominiums so the title of that article is "Oakwood mutiny".
Agree that "Mutiny" should be "mutiny" though, if that's the right term. --Howard the Duck 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye, the event is called a "situation" but Jose Abueva suggests that it could be considered a mutiny since most of those involved in the "situation" are military personnel. (See this). Abueva added that it couldn't be a coup d'état attempt because it "required an armed attempt to remove an official." So, since experts are undecided what to call this event, I say let's move this to 2007 Manila Peninsula Standoff. --Jojit (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignacio Bunye was a politician and a mere Palace Spokesman. Sergio Apostol is the legal officer of the Palace, while Abueva does not know anything about law, since he is not in this line. A situation is like any other event, but only events or situations which should result in crimes or felonies are punished by law. So, mutiny is really an improper title, let us re-name it Rebellion or Sedition.

--Florentino floro (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree naming "events" starting with a year. Not only it's unencyclopedic, but if we are to make it uniformed, it would mean entitling every event in the Philippine history with years (i.e. 1896 Revolution, 1986 EDSA Revolution, 2007 Barangay Election, so on and so forth...) †Bloodpack† 06:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that is a good style of creating title, no need for years, just put the name of the place or hotel plus the crime committed. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebellion

I want to be more technical about the title. This happened in the Philippines and should not be considered an international matter like great mutinies: Mutiny is the act of conspiracy among members of a group of similarly-situated individuals (typically members of the military; or the crew of any ship, even if they are civilians) to openly oppose, change or overthrow an existing authority and therefore, disobey the rule of law. The term is commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against their superior officer(s), turning the strongest arm of the law into a danger for the legal order. During the Age of Discovery, mutiny particularly meant open rebellion against a ship’s captain. This occurred, for example, during Magellan’s journey, resulting in the killing of one mutineer, the execution of another and the marooning of two others, and on Henry Hudson’s Discovery, resulting in Hudson and others being set adrift in a boat.

As a lawyer and Judge (Florentino V. Floro, I state that our 1932 Revised Penal Code, copied from Spanish codes provides for felonies. And Mutiny refers only to naval uprisings or standoffs. The proper or legal crime is Rebellion or Sedition punished under the Revised Penal Code. Just listen to the wise words of Kidney transplant patient who now recovers DOJ Sec. Raul Gonzalez (Philippines). He ordered the filing not of MUTINY charges but of sedition or rebellion.

So, I MOVE that the title be changed to MANILA PENINSULA REBELLION or SEDITION, not standoff since this word is not a legal term. We are dealing here with a legal not media article.

just sayin

--Florentino floro (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It'll be interesting if common practice calls this "situation" a "rebellion". I still want to have an opinion on the original author of this article. Other media/press sources either call it a coup, standoff (as I've explained earlier it's "unencyclopediable"), siege (not really that prevalent) and uprising. --Howard the Duck 07:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would not be a WikiPedia policy for title to be under the wisdom of discretion of the creators or authors. REASON: supposing that the article I author is a medical article like drugs, viagra or medicines and even vitamin. Here in WikiPedia I had been often corrected by some very professional members whose line is medicine, on my edits on medicines where I would cite references like cnn, reuters, but the study or research is just an opinion of few. So, my point is: the title of the article, if the article is technical or professional or belongs to a line or department of expertise like law, art, culture, medicine, etc., then, the legal or medical etc. term or title should be used or prevail. I cite reference to support my stance:

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, who ordered a prosecution team to file sedition and rebellion charges against those in the standoff, said the "suspects" were to be kept in custody for inquest purposes. "There is no court today (a holiday). We have to keep them in custody for inquest purposes," Gonzalez said on dzEC radio on Friday morning.

So, there is no such thing as Mutiny, standoff, or even siege (which is a blockade), which are all misnomers. How can we title this event or situation a mutiny when there was none? Can we rely upon local and foreign media reporters who call such event a dog or cat, and forget the most wise SECRETARY OF FILIPINO JUSTICE Raul Gonzalez (Philippines)? Of course not.

I even heard him on TV this morning is shining lance, fresh from his First Friday vomiting and Kidyney transplant all in splendor of luxurious Amercana with his face no longer color eggplant like last august, but he is like PINK flower, his rosy cheeks, due to the fact that he stated before reporters that he has the kidney of 2 year old, while when he said that the other convicts of NINOY case should be released before Christmas, then, one in Malacanang not the DWARF or dwendelina or thumbelina, tersely said that Sec. Gonzales has 3 kidneys

Let us leave it at that. Humour. But I heard him this a.m. and even late last night on panel at ANC, and he said that - they can also file INCITING TO SEDITION, where the penalty is prision correccional or 6 months imprisonment but the leaders are liable for LIFE imprisonment, so NO BAIL.

But, since GONZALES is not a bar topnotcher and is not even an authority on criminal law (I hold the 91% Ateneo Record of 91% in criminal law review from 1975-1985, and my bar rating of 87.55% can never be matched by this Raul Gonzales whom I faced and lectured to on August 22, 2005, when I reported to him my classmate DOJ State Prosecutor VENI FULE texting me and spreading rumours that Gonzales was having dialysis.... Now, my point, is TRILLANES cannot be liable for rebellion and sedition if charged since under our criminal law, what he did yesterday is a CONTINUING CRIME called complex and he is already being tried under Judge Pimentel. Pimentel had ordered his arrest yesterday and that is a BENCH warrant only, plus TRILLANES is liable for INDIRECT CONTEMPT of COURT under Rule 71. I hope Raul Gonzales and the Prosecutors there at the DOJ, most of whom are my classmates like LEO Dacera, State Counsel Ricardo Paras III, and Veni Fule, if they will INVESTIGATE TRILLANES, the proper charge must be consolidated with the PIMENTEL pending case, nothing more nothing less.

Hope this is not a memo on criminal law, but since this is not a forum or blog, I have to support my thesis on the title.

--Florentino floro (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No -- I'm not saying the article creator gets to decide what would be article title, it's just common courtesy. Nevertheless, I'd say to stick to the current title until a predominant name surfaces. It's senseless to move this article everywhere. And it doesn't have to be correct but the most predominant, it's like Mandy Moore, in the eyes of the law, she's a certain "Amanda Leigh Moore" but for you and me she's just "Mandy Moore". --Howard the Duck 08:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I admit that it is really a grey or gray area ... What's in a name as Juliet or Romeo would ... Even Shakespeare's works may not be really his ... Actually, I had been away from WikiPedia, and I contributed so little unlike before, until just yesterday, when this thing happened. This is part of my PROPHECIES and I am so excited on the SPIRITUAL FIAT which would change the course of Philippine history. The confluence of events turn to the 1918 Fatima PREDICTIONS of famine, deaths and dire disasters due to non-repentance. Here, in the Philippines, our people are so hungry, and many are JOBLESS including myself, due to vengeance, anger, hatred and bitterness PLUS corruption. But there is a God who watches us from a distance. This discussion really caught my eye, since when I the world TITLE section caught my attention, I recall the 1980 days when we studied criminal law at the ATENEO. And when we talk of MUTINY the crime is punished only when it is committed in the high seas in ships. Anyway, but it is an interesting discussion, since many titles here in WikiPedia, are not really technically correct and must be changed so that WikiPedia would be a greater book ever. Whatever the title is, I hope that our country will crush EVIL by means of this TITLE.

--Florentino floro (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

GMA 7 called the event as "seige". I feel using the word "mutiny" in this event is still questionable. Oakwood mutiny is fine because those involved before were enlisted military personnels who were then in service with the government. Whereas now, those involved in this Peninsula scenario are now under trial. I feel seige would be appropriate as they took over the place regardless whether it is for "protest" or for "sedition". I say, let's reach a consensus via poll? †Bloodpack† 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully OBJECT since Siege is basically a blockade:

A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by force or attrition, often accompanied by an assault. The term derives from the Latin word for "seat" or "sitting."[1] A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that refuses to surrender and cannot be easily taken by a frontal assault. Sieges involve surrounding the target and blocking the reinforcement or escape of troops or provision of supplies (a tactic known as "investment"[2]), typically coupled with attempts to reduce the fortifications by means of siege engines, artillery bombardment, mining (also known as mining), or the use of deception or treachery to bypass defenses. Failing a military outcome, sieges can often be decided by starvation, thirst or disease, which can afflict both the attacker or defender.

GMA 7 is a station famous for comedy of errors, carabao english or Eraptions. Perhaps one can consult american language experts on this rather than use GMA's use of terms or words as authority or taste reference in title. Further, how many journalists of GMA 7 had really on their heads Ph.D.s or M.A.s in communications from A schools like Ateneo?

[edit] Recent sieges

--Florentino floro (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Polls are evil -- nevertheless even if we come up with a poll and everyone agree with it, when a name for this incident becomes widespread, even if it is "technically" wrong we should abide with that. With that said, it seems "standoff" is now the predominant name to describe this. --Howard the Duck 10:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiPedia titles of articles should not be subject to elections or contests, for even stats polls like here in the Philippines, like SWS surveys of Mahar Mangahas had been severely criticized and laughed at PinoyExchange forum, and with credible evidence of being so inaccurate, biased, one-sided and of course envelopemental mentality. But we must thanks the author of this article since, this TURNING POINT of our Philippine History, this Mutiny, definately UNVEILS how our Supreme Court of the Philippines, the justices, judges, lawyers and top government officials are IDEAL practitioners of HYPOCRISY, with utter LUST and GREED for power, glory, honor, money and most of them end up in SUITES of ST. LUKES / Asian Hospital / MMC with tubes and horns due to cancer, stroke and spinal disorders.

Retired Lt. Gen. Jose Calimlim, deputy administrator of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), died of an intestinal disease Friday morning. He was 62.*[1]


--Florentino floro (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, it doesn't matter if it's correct or wrong, as long as it is the most predominant use. And as I've said "standoff" is becoming more and more predominant.
As for "siege" it does perfectly describe the situation: except that the installation they're placing under siege isn't a city or fortress.
As for other rants, Wikipedia is not PinoyExchange or your favorite web forums, please refrain from doing that. It wastes donations. --Howard the Duck 11:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on putting following info

Flag of Australia Flag of the United Kingdom Both Australia and Britain had advised their nationals to avoid large gatherings and take precautions in the weekend. Australia, UK caution nationals in Manila.

Flag of Singapore Singapore has advised any Singaporeans in Manila to monitor any changes regarding the mutiny and to check in with the embassy. Singapore travelers to Philippines advised to take precaution.

Will these be okay. Ominae (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes go ahead and add it. --Howard the Duck 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] <noinclude>

Under the heading "Occupation of the Manila Peninsula" there's a random <noinclude> just sitting there. I've checked the edit box for it, trying to figure out to remove it, but it's not there. Anyone else think they know how to remove it? --Ye Olde Luke 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the indication that the template's going to be changed. Ominae (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox military conflict

Ok, User:Rizalninoynapoleon must give me a few good reasons why that infobox is appropriate for this article? He never uses edit summaries, he just goes ahead and re-adds it. --Howard the Duck 10:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, noticed that too. It feels like the article is a "major" war/battle/conflict. I know it's serious but really not that bloody major †Bloodpack† 10:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As I've said on my edit summaries, place that infobox first on Bonus Army then we'll talk. --Howard the Duck 10:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact i did such thing no reaction from there.
Here are the reasons the warbox should it be placed there:
1. The mutiny though failed was considered a revolutionary action.
2. Unlike EDSA I and EDSA II which were successful revolutions/rebellions, this was called a revolution/rebellion with a mix of coup d'etat and peaceful protest by the Military [2].
3. And according to the warbox guidelines: Warbox may be used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner and the mutiny was considered a skirmish battle although no casualties

Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait for the mainstays in that page, it was barely a day.
  1. Mutiny? How about Mutiny on the Bounty? Don't tell me you'd need a warbox for that (LOL)
  2. You called it a mutiny on #1 then rebellion/revolution on #2. I wonder why the article on French Revolution doesn't have a warbox?
  3. The mutiny aka rebellion/revolution is a "skirmish battle"? What the hell is a "skirmish battle"? Is this some sort of invention? Who told you that the mutiny aka rebellion/revolution was a "skirmish battle"? So it's a mutiny aka rebellion/revolution that is considered a "skirmish battle"?!
--Howard the Duck 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The mutiny that i am talking about is not the mutiny on the high seas. Besides it was the media you gave the name mutiny and what happened could be considered now a rebellion rather than a mutiny Don't you think!
Okay, I understand the confusion so let me change my statement, the Manila Peninsula Mutiny should be changed to the Manila Peninsula Rebellion since the was called by the media , a "rebellion" rather than a mutiny See here. And on the warbox well, it was a rebellion like EDSA I and EDSA II but again it was unsuccessful. Rizalninoynapoleon 13:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL, whether it's on the high seas, on the ground or in a plane, it is still a mutiny. Not only can military people do a mutiny.
Actually if this article is moved either to a siege or rebellion then I think a warbox would be mildly appropriate. But I think the warbox isn't just for all activities that is participated by the military -- as it says "particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars)", if it becomes "it is considered as a mutiny aka rebellion" then it'll dilute it's "warbox-ness". I won't even classify this "incident" (incidentally that's what the Arroyo government describes this event, an "incident") as a "skirmish" as the main purpose of the military (as they say) was to serve the arrest warrant, not to engage in battle. --Howard the Duck 13:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Here, lets make a comprise if I can changed the title of the webpage will you then allow me to put the warbox Rizalninoynapoleon 13:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As I've said I'd only think about it. Also it doesn't remove the essence of the siege: it wasn't to make war, or even a battle, or even a skirmish; the tanks were used to serve the warrant. It may be O.A. but it seems that was their only and sole "objective". If the purpose was other than to serve the warrant the whole Manila Pen could've been leveled by now. --Howard the Duck 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Howard, the events that happened on Thursday what considered as an rebellion and since Trillanes and Lim were charged with rebellion in a civilian court we should change the title of the webpage and some contents from mutiny to rebellion. Rizalninoynapoleon 02:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Really? Even if you consider it as a rebellion, if other people don't, we'd abide with the other people. As of now, the most predominant terms are coup, siege, situation and mutiny (in that order). Rebellion is not that quite used. --Howard the Duck 06:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] semi-protected?

Okay my turn. Give me reasons why the article should be semi-protected. I read the semi-protection policy and see no reason or even heavy vandalism that requires this page to be semi-protected. We do have content disputes, but we're peacefully discussing it here aren't we? †Bloodpack† 11:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, here my reasons:

1. There are people trying to vandalise the page to probably to discredit what happened.[citation needed] 2. This is a current event which could change any time. 3. It is better that the editing and the contributing should go registered users and administrators [citation needed] (kindly refer to WP:OWN) then after two or three days we can lift it. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. Every article is vandalized. Should all of them be semi-protected? In fact this article hasn't even reached the level of vandalism that Marimar (Philippine TV series) has. The vandalism I revert here is petty childish vandalism.
  2. 2007 NFL season is a current event. Why is it not semi-protected?
  3. We're not Gloria Arroyo who implements the CPR. Admins only semi-protect once the vandalism is rampant, not because it will be rampant.
In any case, don't add the semi-protect templates since it won't semi-protect the article -- only admins can do that. The place to ask is at WP:RFPP. --Howard the Duck 12:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P1,000,000 Reward

As of now (December 2), President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is holding a one million reward to whoever can locate/catch one of the escaped Magdalo members (or any other). Check the (December 2) issue of the Inquirer newspaper. Moogle 12 Good discussion sub-section. Behind this, is Atty. Trixie Angeles news report I added, where she was very afraid of the whereabouts of Faeldon, when, forthwith, we are astonished why a reward is set up, so who is who or what is really happening on Faeldon and this lady lawyer? just sayin, so hope this Reward things should be watched and closely added edited here for more current developments. Puzzling.

--Florentino floro 07:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article move

Pls don't move a page title without discussing for concensus. Naming an article with a year and a preposition is unencylopedic. It's like were gonna name every event in Philippine history with a year just to make it uniformed (i.e. Philippine coup attempt of 1986, 87, 88 etc...) †Bloodpack† 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed the copy-paste move (sorta). GFDL says we can't do that since it'll screw up the article history.
The page move is immensely stupid. No wonder Of did it; s/he's notorious for moving articles without consensus. (see 0.9999... for example, it was the TFA when s/he moved it.)
Nevertheless I think it is now time to determine what should be the title for this article. Whatever the title should be, the phrase "Manila Peninsula" should be a part of it. --Howard the Duck 03:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I really despise the current article title. I mean, the sense is kinda broad, "Manila Peninsula" should appear somewhere. But my choice is really "Manila Peninsula seige" †Bloodpack† 13:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You can add your own choice below... however I think "coup" as taken precedence as several sources are calling it a coup. When you call it a siege, the events after capitulation/surrender won't be included. --Howard the Duck 13:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I understand now. Anything except this present title. Besides, the current article title feels more like a category rather than a title †Bloodpack† 14:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

  • Manila Peninsula coup
    1. Several sources call it a coup; almost all sources have the phrase "Manila Peninsula" (a large amount of source call the event with a "Makati" prefix but "Makati" is a rather large place) so having the phrase "Manila Peninsula" is the most prevalent name. --Howard the Duck 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Manila Peninsula mutiny (previous name)
  • Philippine coup attempt of 2007 (current name)
    1. There is no consensus on whether this event is considered a rebellion, mutiny, standoff or siege. Although this title is unpopular with some Wikipedia editors and unheard of in mainstream Philippine media, it is a descriptive name with no implications of a POV. Also, not all article titles with prepositions and years indicate a poorly thought name. Exemptions such as the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner all defy common naming conventions. At the same time, almost all international major news organizations loosely refer to this event as a foiled coup attempt in the Philippines. For references in naming events of this nature, see this list of other coup attempts covered in Wikipedia. O (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • "Although this title is unpopular with some Wikipedia editors and unheard of in mainstream Philippine media, it is a descriptive name with no implications of a POV." Actually, the title, Philippine coup attempt of 2007 already poses a POV with the word coup used. Besides, it is not clear what 2007 Philippine coup YOU are trying to imply as there were other coup attempts that happened in the past. If you're gonna narrow it down the description with "2007" pertaining to the Manila Peninsula scenario, then might as well indicate "Manila Peninsula" in the title. You only took a long road to travel with your naming idea when you can just "bullseye" the description right in it. If you really like long names, then might as well say it as "Philippine Coup d'état attempt that happened in the year 2007" How's that? Like I said, the current title feels more like a Category than an actual article title †Bloodpack† 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No consensus? A week ago maybe, but there are no converging names for this event, and they all contain the phrase "Manila Peninsula." Again, we don't care about how other people call their coups, what matters is how the people call it. And certainly, rather a few call this event "Philippine coup attempt of 2007". Hate POV names? How about the Glorious Revolution? --Howard the Duck 05:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Clearly the "Philippine coup attempt of 2007" name is the least dominant (aside from how the government wants to name it) and shouldn't be the article title as per WP:NC. --Howard the Duck 05:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Name Total Google News searches  % G-News sources with quotes  %
"Philippine coup attempt of 2007" 186 8 0 0
"Manila Peninsula coup" 774 33 2 5
"Manila Peninsula siege" 307 13 23 53
"Manila Peninsula standoff" 544 23 17 40
"Manila Peninsula mutiny" 473 20 1 2
"Makati situation 2007" 89 4 0 0
It is reiterated in my previous post that the sense of a foiled coup attempt in the Philippines is loosely referenced in international news agencies; it is not meant to be used as a verbatim description of this event. Your search results seemed to imply that a lesser number of news reports referenced a coup in the Philippines, but only because you included the strings attempt and of 2007—words which are only meant for inclusion when naming an encyclopedic article, and not a news article:
Keyword Google News search results
Philippine coup 1437
Peninsula Manila coup 813
Peninsula Manila siege 320
Peninsula Manila standoff 574
Peninsula Manila mutiny 347
O (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that there were several coups in the Philippines, right? If we'd include "2007" for "Philippine coup" it's reduce drastically to 452. In this case, Peninsula Manila coup has more search results.
You'd then ask why omit "2007" from the other 4 options? "Peninsula Manila" is specific already, and "Philippine coup" may mean any coup done on the last few years (there has been 3 coups, I'm not counting the 80s-early 90s since Google obviously doesn't have news for those dates). --Howard the Duck 07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Google News search results only return news articles that were published within the past 30 days. O (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the title is ambiguous. Are you willing to move the article to "Philippine coup"? And what's the "Archives" section for? --Howard the Duck 07:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and explain how Philippine coup attempt of 2007 is ambiguous. Nobody's suggesting the page be moved to Philippine coup. As we've been discussing ad infinitum, the phrase Philippine coup was only used as a search string for Google News to emphasize the volume of news agencies covering the event.
Again, for the nth time: Google News does not include historical archives in its default search results. O (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "Google News does not include historical archives in its default search results". It searches the latest events. But what will happen if at some future date there will be another coup attempt in the Philippines? Your title Philippine coup attempt of 2007 will be obselete in Google's search! As the search results will be the LATEST event! We can't continuously title every coup in the Philippines with "Philippine coup attempt of 2007, 2008, 2009" etc. etc. It is unencyclopedic! It's not enough reason to use the word "coup" just because it's the most popular word in google's searches. Like I said, might as well rename People Power with Philippine coup attempt of 1986 †Bloodpack† 15:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You used the phrase "Philippine coup"; that's why I used "quotation marks" so that the exact phrase would appear on the news article. If the exact phrase appeared in the article, then it can be used as an article name. If you enter 'philippine coup' in the search box without quotation marks, every article that includes the words "philippine" and "coup" will show up; now if you place "quotation marks", the search will churn out the articles in which the phrase "philippine coup" shows up.
Verbatim description of the event = that may be the article title,. that's why I insist on adding "quotation marks" to restrict the search parameters into the exact phrase.
Philippine coup is ambiguous? Yes it is! Provided there is a more predominant name used to describe the event. And "Philippine coup attempt of 2007" isn't the one.
You've yet to tell me what the word "Archive" is for... it's on the left frame of the webpage. And it lists the following years: 2006, 2003 1990, 1989 and 1987.
Using that archive thingy, I've found out I can search archives of news sources! Weeeeeeee.... --Howard the Duck 09:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Current consensus is 2:1 †Bloodpack† 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus should be about 70%. If there's no consensus either it stays here or someone moves it back to the original place since the move was unilateral. --Howard the Duck 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading the article, I find the application of the label "coup" to this incident to be misleading. One of the defining elements of a coup d'état is the assertion of control over the organs of the state (and, generally, the media). Had the mutineers attempted to seize the local city hall, a judicial building, an executive administration building, or something similar, that'd be one thing; but they didn't ... they occupied a hotel. Manila Peninsula mutiny or Peninsula Manila mutiny are the most appropriate titles. Actually, I have no opinion on which is the most appropriate title, but I just feel that it shouldn't include the word "coup". – Black Falcon (Talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I myself couldn't decide on what term to use, I just picked "coup" since it's the most widespread term to describe the incident. --Howard the Duck 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree to rename this article as Manila Peninsula rebellion because Trillanes et al were charged with rebellion just like how the Oakwood mutiny article was titled. --Jojit (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody seems to react, so I've been bold enough to move the page. --Jojit (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy check

The statement that the government prosecutors have given Capt. Faeldon and four other Magdalos until December 18 to submit their affidavits does not seem to have been mentioned in the footnote attached to justify it, (footnote no. 42) Could the person who uploaded this please attach the ccorrect footnote, if any? Wingedprophecy (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the statement "On December 4, 2007, 3 former Magdalo soldiers, led by Cpl. Elmer Colon (black camouflage uniform and a wacky wig), hired by Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay joined Pen putsch, while Armed Forces Chief Hermogenes Esperon Jr. confirmed the arrest of a high-ranking leader of the New People’s Army, Myrna Hombrebueno, proving that the Magdalo had ties with the communist rebels. [37]" is inaccurate.

First, the 3 alleged Magdalo soldiers (please do not forget to include the word "alleged" to any disputed fact. Remember there is still a trial that is set to prove, among other things, who actually participated and their precise role in the incidents, as well as whether or not the incident is a crime) allegedly joined the Pen "putsch" on 29 November, not 4 December.

Second, the arrest of Myrna Hombrebueno is not a high-ranking leader of the New People's Army, this is not an established fact, this is only a statement of Esperon, who is not exactly an unbiased commentator. Her presence is does not constitute proof of anything other than her prescence, because her actual participation, and her familiarity with Sen. TRillanes et al have not yet been established. The statement, which goes into the reputation of the alleged leaders of the incident, seem to be potentially libelous.

A more appropriate statement would be, "On December 4, it was reported that three former soldiers charged and demoted for their participation the 27 July Oakwood incident were among the participants in the Manila Penn incident, while Gen. Esperon confirmed that among the arrested was oneMyrna Hombrebueno, a.k.a Myrna Buendia, a suspected member of the New People's Army, which Esperon construes as estblishing a link between the Magdalos and the Communists." Wingedprophecy (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Led by Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV and Army Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, thirty soldiers with armed guards, on trial for the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, walked out of court by breaking down a door and marched towards the luxury Peninsula Manila Hotel." This statement is inaccurate. None of the sources indicate that the door of the Regional Trial Court was broken in order to facilitate the walk-out. The only door that was broken was the Manila Penn's door which was destroyed by the tank. Wingedprophecy (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath section

Is anyone bold enough to summarize and cleanup the overly long "Aftermath" section? --Howard the Duck 06:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)