Talk:Philippines

Template:VA

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	Philippines To Do	edit - history - watch - purge
	Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Culture section to include Music and Festivals.

Wikipedia Meetups

November 2024 +/-
London 210	November 10, 2024 (2024-11-10)
US Mountain West online	November 12, 2024 (2024-11-12)
Wiki Uff da! - Event 2	November 14, 2024 (2024-11-14)
Oxford 106	November 17, 2024 (2024-11-17)
San Diego 116	November 18, 2024 (2024-11-18)
Seattle meetup	November 19, 2024 (2024-11-19)
Wiki Uff da! - Event 3	November 20, 2024 (2024-11-20)
CCA Montreal Editathon	November 20, 2024 (2024-11-20)
WikiCon Australia 2024	November 23, 2024 (2024-11-23)
BLT Office Hours	November 24, 2024 (2024-11-24)
December 2024 +/-
Christchurch 34	December 1, 2024 (2024-12-01)
London 211	December 8, 2024 (2024-12-08)
San Diego 117	December 16, 2024 (2024-12-16)
Full Meetup Calendar • Events calendar on Meta For meetups in other languages, see the list on Meta

Meetups have so far been held in fifteen areas in the Philippines:

• Catarman (Northern Samar)
• Guiuan (Eastern Samar)
• Bacolod
• Borongan (Eastern Samar)
• Calbayog (Samar)
• Catbalogan (Samar)
• Cavite
• Cebu
• Lingayen (Pangasinan)
• Manila (Metro Manila)
• Naga (Camarines Sur)
• Palo (Leyte)
• Tacloban (Leyte)
• Vigan (Ilocos Sur)
• Virac (Catanduanes)

Interactive events

• Chat via Chatroll
• Group Chat via RumbleTalk
• Web stream via Livestream

See also

• Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines
• Wikimedia Philippines
• PhilWiki Community

External Link

• Meetup page of Waray Wikipedia

Template for other languages

• /interlingua
• /summarized -Please leave this here. This is a barebones version for use in initiating translations to other languages. Please do not remove or expand . Feel free to enter essential only data.--Jondel 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE HISTORY SECTION

I am currently reviewing the history section because there are attempts to reassess this article for a higher status while some matters are still in need of some serious attention.

1. Philippine Independence: The History section mentions and I quote, "the United States granted the Philippines its independence from colonial rule due to international pressure". Whoever placed that statement here used the CIA factbook as basis. I perused the cited source and NOWHERE does it mention that international pressure was one of the immediate and direct causes for the granting of independence. Indeed, this statement is dubious if not a clear case of misinformation. The granting of Philippine independence in 1946 was already set in motion 12 years prior by the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie Act which provided for self-government and eventual independence after a period of 10 years. Please see books by Zaide and other authorities, as well as the text of the Act here: Tydings-McDuffie Act.

Domestic conservative interests, or even partisan and self-interest by politicians during Quezon's time may also have been factors in the quest for independence, but then again any statement to that effect must be based upon a credible and well-recognized source or authority.

2.Colonization by Quezon of Mindanao: The same section states and I quote, "Manuel L. Quezon was elected as president in 1935, with the task of preparing the country for sovereignty. During his term numerous tasks regarding agrarian reform were initiated, including the colonization of Mindanao, an area considered as part of the hinterlands at the time." While Mindanao may have well been considered as part of the hinterlands during Quezon's time, the use of the word colonization is such a serious term considering that the issue is still a continuing and hotly debated topic (and is even the subject of a current armed conflict) and to use it, and make it appear like fact in an encyclopedia such as this, without citing a credible source, is not at all proper.

3. Coup attempts: on coup attempts the section states, "Terrorism in the south began to fester and move up north while an unruly military began plotting coup attempts in the capital, Manila". I'm not really sure if the use of the word unruly is in line with this encyclopedia's neutrality (NPOV) policy. Perhaps the proper wording should be: "Terrorism in the south began to fester and move up north while certain factions of the military began plotting coup attempts". The latter wording, to my mind is more in line with NPOV than the previous one. Thinkinggecko (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem capable and should probably consider making the edits yourself. I've been here a short time only but from what I can tell many who are capable and circumspect leave the actual edits to others who while bold may not appreciate the nuance as well as those who made the initial observations. Lambanog (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be glad to make the necessary edits once an administrator unlocks this article for editing. Right now, access has been limited to the talk page. I understand some editors would like this article to be reassessed for the GA and FA status, I certainly would want to see a more thorough discussion on this talkpage to arrive at a consensus and avoid this article from being hijacked before any action is to be taken in granting any GA or FA status. I am (and I'm sure others are also) of the position that articles in an encyclopedia should be accurate, neutral, brief and concise without being incomplete nor overly-loaded, and well documented or referenced. Thinkinggecko (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted a possible vandalism

I reverted an edit by User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw because the user has not provided a proper research study or any academic studies based on the history of the Philippines. Please use common-sense and see the History of the Philippines. The early history of the Philippines was both indigenous and islamic, since the indigenous villages at that period especially in the central and southern regions of the Philippines was ruled by the datus, rajahs and sultans. The Negritos and other northern tribal groups, however, was never influence by islam, instead they were animist tribal groups. Boxedor (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the new titles for the history section. They are general yet descriptive at the same time. ;)--23prootie (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

The article has been protected again due to edit warring. Protecting admin recommended to fix some dispute on this article, it may be the reason why there is an edit war. We wish that an admin will help fix these.--JL 09 _^q?c 23:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philippines/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now read through the article a couple of times and it appears to be at or about GA-level. As such, I will not be "quick failing" this article. I will now continue with a detailed review. As this is a comprehensive article, its going to take several days to review it. Its also worth noting, that at this stage I will be mostly reporting "problems". This does not imply that the article is bad: the first stage is to identify problems (and if necessary get them resolved) and the second stage is the review comments and sentencing. Pyrotec (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Etymology & History -

• These two sections appear to be generally compliant.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Politics and government -

• Generally OK. However:

• Ref 62 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. [ca. 2009]. "Japan's ODA Data by Country". http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/oda/data/01ap_ea02.html. Retrieved 2010-01-05.) appears to be a dead web link, and

– Updated reference. Lambanog (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• there is some WP:Overlinking, for example there are multiple links in this section for Cold war, War on terror, provinces (and possibly others).

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

....Sorry for the delay; I will restart the review tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An apparently-comprehensive, well-illustrated, well-referenced, article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   There is a bit too much WP:Overlinking. I've removed some of it during my review, but more could be taken out.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this arrticle GA-status.

Congratulations on producing a comprehensive well-illustrated and referenced article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I AM APPEALING TO EVERYONE WHO HAS GREATER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE WORKAROUNDS IN THIS WEBSITE. WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME TOO COMPLICATED FOR ME TO ADD(OR REMOVE) INFOS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACCESS TO EDITING THE PAGE ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES TO REMOVE THE MENTIONING OF "CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN" AMONG THOSE RESTAURANTS MENTIONED ALONG WITH MCDONALDS AND KFC,THAT APPARENTLY HAVE THEIR OUTLETS HERE. ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT CALIFORNIA PIZZA HAS A BRANCH HERE, I THINK THERE IS ONLY 1 BRANCH IN THE WHOLE ARCHIPELAGO, AND NOT THAT POPULAR AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER AFOREMENTIONED RESTAURANTS TO BE MENTIONED. I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ADDED ON THE LIST AS A PROMOTIONAL GIMMICK AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS WEBSITE SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES. IF CALIFORNIA PIZZA LIKES TO BE KNOWN IN THE PHILIPPINES THEN THEY SHOULD MAKE AN ADVERTISEMENT(ASTOUNDINGLY, I HAVENT SEEN ANY OF THEIR ADS) AND LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE. I HAVE ALREADY DELETED THAT RESTAURANT BEFORE AND SURPRISINGLY SOMEONE POSTED IT AGAIN AND EVEN PLACING IT FIRST BEFORE MCDONALDS. I WILL BET MY LAST CENTAVO THAT SHOULD YOU COME TO THE PHILIPPINES, ASK ANYONE HERE IF THEY KNOW SUCH RESTAURANT AND OUT OF 100 RESPONDENTS ALL OVER MANILA, ONLY 4 WOULD PERHAPS KNOW IT, WHEREAS IF YOU ASK THEM IF THEY KNOW SHAKEYS, PERHAPS 80 WOULD AFFIRM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmedina (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Languages

Isn't taglog not really a Filipino language? I thought it just was a general term to sum up all of the different Filipino languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudeaga (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

there are more cebuano speeking people than tagalog. please do more research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.132.190 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Asian City of the future

I think you should include in the economy section or whatever section you like about Davao city, Cebu city and Quezon City listed as top Ten Asian City of the future by fdi magazine where Davao is listed at no 10, Cebu at no. 8 and Quezon City at no. 7. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.151.184 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Relationships

Philippines has good foreign relationships.The following countries are its major import partners.

1.U.S.A

2.Japan

3.South Korea

4.Taiwan

5.China

6.Vietnam

7.Palau

8.Netherlands

9.United Kingdom

10.Canada

The following countries are its major export partners.

1.U.S.A

2.China

3.United Kingdom

4.Netherlands

5.Palau

Lambanog's edits

Excised the following paragraph from the cuisine section and am storing it here in case someone objects:

Today, Philippine cuisine continues to evolve in techniques and styles of cooking dishes, in both traditional Filipino and modern cuisines. Fast food is also popular. American chef and television personality Anthony Bourdain has hailed Filipino pork cuisine and named the country at the top of his "Hierarchy of Pork".

Comments: Not cohesive. Not focused. Bourdain's endorsement in the article could be stronger. Lambanog (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous "factual overview" I replaced:

The Philippines (Filipino: Pilipinas [pɪlɪˈpinɐs]) officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, is a country in Southeast Asia in the western Pacific Ocean. To its north across the Luzon Strait lies Taiwan. To its west across the South China Sea is Vietnam. The Sulu Sea to the southwest separates it from the island of Borneo and to the south the Celebes Sea from other islands of Indonesia. It is bounded on the east by the Philippine Sea. An archipelago comprising 7,107 islands, the Philippines has the 5th longest coastline in the world. The islands are broadly categorized into three main geographical divisions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The capital city is Manila.

The Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country, with an estimated population of about 92 million people. It is estimated that there are about 11 million overseas Filipinos worldwide, equivalent to about 11% of the total population of the Philippines. Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands. In terms of religious affiliation a 2000 census shows Filipinos identifying themselves as follows: Roman Catholic 80.9%, Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%, Aglipayan 2%, other Christian 4.5%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.6%, none 0.1%.

Its national economy is the 47th largest in the world, with an estimated 2008 gross domestic product (GDP nominal) of over US$ 168.6 billion (nominal). Primary exports include semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, and fruits. Major trading partners include China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia. Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (PHP).

A former colony of Spain and the United States, the customs, methods, and ideas of both have influenced Filipino culture as have the practices of neighboring Asian countries. Ecologically, the Philippines is one of the most diverse countries in the world. Balancing the often conflicting demands of a burgeoning population in the light of poverty on the one hand and the sensible custodianship of natural resources and conservation of the environment on the other is one of the main challenges facing the nation.

Replaced with this more "expository overview":

The Philippines (Filipino: Pilipinas [pɪlɪˈpinɐs]) officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, is a country in Southeast Asia in the western Pacific Ocean. To its north across the Luzon Strait lies Taiwan. To its west across the South China Sea is Vietnam. The Sulu Sea to the southwest separates it from the island of Borneo and to the south the Celebes Sea from other islands of Indonesia. It is bounded on the east by the Philippine Sea. An archipelago comprising 7,107 islands, the Philippines has the 5th longest coastline in the world. The islands are broadly categorized into three main geographical divisions: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The capital city is Manila.

With an estimated population of about 92 million people, the Philippines is the world's 12th most populous country. It is estimated that there are about 11 million overseas Filipinos worldwide, equivalent to about 11% of the total population of the Philippines. Multiple ethnicities and cultures are found throughout the islands. Ecologically, the Philippines is one of the most diverse countries in the world.

Its national economy is the 47th largest in the world, with an estimated 2008 gross domestic product (GDP nominal) of over US$ 168.6 billion (nominal). Primary exports include semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, and fruits. Major trading partners include China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia. Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (PHP).

In ancient times the archipelago was populated by successive waves of Austronesian peoples who brought with them influences from Malay, Hindu, and Islamic cultures. Trade would also introduce some Chinese cultural influences. The arrival of Ferdinand Magellan would mark the beginning of an era of Spanish dominance. Christianity would become widespread and the Philippines would serve as the Asian hub of the Manila-Acapulco galleon fleet. After the short-lived Philippine revolution and Philippine-American War at the start of the 20th century, the United States replaced Spain as the dominant power which it remained, aside from a period of Japanese occupation, until the end of World War II when the Philippines gained independence. The United States bequeathed to the Philippines the English language and its democratic presidential system of government. Since independence the Philippines has had an often tumultuous experience with democracy, with popular "People Power" movements overthrowing a dictatorship in one instance but also underlining the institutional weaknesses of its constitutional republic in others.

Comments: Seems to be more in line with other country article overviews and I get the feeling fact listings are probably better placed in the relevant sections. Feel free to discuss.

Removed the following statements from the Economy section:

The economy was largely anchored on the Manila-Acapulco galleon during the Spanish period and bilateral trade with the United States during the American period. Pro-Filipino economic policies were first implemented during the tenure of Carlos P. Garcia with the "Filipino First" policy.

Today, there is a mixed economy.

In a bid to further strengthen the economy, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo pledged to turn the country into a developed country by 2020. As part of this goal, she instituted five economic "super regions" to concentrate on the economic strengths of various regions, as well as the implementation of tax reforms, continued privatization of state assets and the building-up of infrastructure in various areas of the nation.

The government aims to accelerate economy, and GDP growth by 2009.

Comments: Galleon trade should be in the history section. "Filipino First" policy's impact on economy is not made clear. Saying there is a mixed economy is saying the obvious. Virtually all modern economies can be described as mixed. The rest reads like something out of a press release and are actions largely expected of all governments. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed "and have lead a Philippine-based company known as "Level Up! Games" to emerge in the Philippine industry" from the Media section.

Comments: Although I am personally aware of the existence of said company, notability has not been established especially in regards to relevance for this article. Citations for the sentence did not mention it. It comes off as promotional and has therefore been removed. Lambanog (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following:

According to recent theories and their archaeogenetic evidence: in 50,0000 B.C.E before the end of the last Ice Age, the Philippine archipelago was part of a large continent called Sundaland. The landmass was populated by ancients speaking the primordial Austric language, the oldest known world language and a grand candidate for unified world mother-tongue or root-language due to the immensity and variety of descendant languages. These ancients, was said to have developed Urreligion and are the legendary root of human culture but their society was destroyed by a massive apocalyptic flood caused by the melting ice-caps and concurrent volcanic eruptions. The survivors, known as the Nusantao, fled their ruined homeland and spread across the world, eventually pollinating the ancient civilizations of Sumeria, China, Egypt, Indu and the Mayans: all of which have founding legends of a sunken homeland paradise which can be traced back to Sundaland.

Comments: Looks like a fringe theory. Lambanog (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following among others:

due to domestic conservative interests and an aggressive campaign by the Nacionalista Party

Comments: Wording conveyed wrong sense of timing and citation used was imprecise. [Note: Source cited looks like it may be a good reference in general just not used correctly in this case. There might be a way to incorporate it in other ways.] Lambanog (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the Contemporary Period section below:

Contemporary Period

After the World War II, the Philippines faced the plague of political instability. Since 1946, remnants of the Hukbalahap communist rebel army continued to roam the rural regions, disgruntled after the government had rejected their contribution during World War II. Attempts at reconciliation were established by former President Ramón Magsaysay.

File:Edsa shrine.jpg

A statue of the Virgin Mary was built on the EDSA Shrine, after the People Power Revolution.

In 1962 Carlos P. Garcia was elected president. He was followed by Diosdado Macapagal, the 9th president of the Philippines and the first Philippine president with royal lineage tracing back to Rajah Lakandula. The 1960s was a period of economic growth for the Philippines, which developed into one of the wealthiest in Asia. Ferdinand Marcos then became president and barred from seeking a third term, he declared martial law on September 23, 1972.

File:Medal from the Order of Lakandula.jpg

A merit medal from the Order of Lakandula. The highest honor awarded by the Philippine Republic. The order was initiated by the Macapagal Presidential Family, descendants of the Tondo Dyansty's last king, Rajah Lakandula.

Using the crises of political conflicts, the tension of the Cold War, a rising Communist rebellion, an Islamic insurgency and with military support from the USA as justifications; he governed by decree (Oppression), along with his wife Imelda Marcos. After being exiled, opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. (Marcos' chief rival) was assassinated at the Manila International Airport (also called the Ninoy Aquino International Airport) on August 21, 1983.

After the assasination, the People Power Revolution occurred. The people gathered and protested in EDSA, instigated by the Archbishop of Manila, Jaime Cardinal Sin, who was opposed to the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. The People Power Revolution shocked the whole world by being the first non-violent revolution caught on camera. The video footage of Nuns and children stopping war tanks using only their bodies in fervent prayer sent a powerful political message of transcendence which reverberated across the globe. Consequently, this served as an inspiration for the spread of more non-violent revolutions across the world and freeing it from the grip of the Soviet Communists and American Imperialists when the peoples oppressed by the puppet-regimes supported by the two Cold War Superpowers followed suit and threw off their own dictators in similar non-violent revolutions. Eventually this caused the end of Communist rule in Eastern Europe and the removal of US supported autocrats in Latin-America. The democratic movement eventually culminating with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

After losing the subsequent election to Corazón Aquino, the widow of Benigno Aquino and the symbol of the People Power Revolution, who became the first female president of the Philippines and the first female president in Asia; Ferdinand Marcos, a CIA supported dictator and his allies departed to Hawaii in exile aboard American military helicopters.

The return of democracy and government reforms after the events of 1986 were hampered by an IMF induced national debt, government corruption, coup attempts, a Communist insurgency and an Islamic separatist organization. Nevertheless, US Military Bases in the Philippines (The largest ever built) were shutdown and converted to Freeport Zones. Furthermore, the economy improved during the administration of Fidel V. Ramos, who was elected in 1992. However, the economic improvements were negated at the onset of the East Asian financial crisis in 1997.

Due to his popularity among the poor and uneducated by being a movie actor, Joseph Ejercito Estrada was elected president. The 2001 EDSA Revolution however, led to his downfall when he was found guilty of fraud and plunder.

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took leadership in 2001 following the controversial EDSA 2 revolution and the impeachment of the Estrada government. She is contextually; a democratically elected Queen by being a daughter of a former Head of State, Diosdado Macapagal and by being a long lost descendant of Rajah Lakandula the last reigning King of the Tondo Dynasty through Don Juan Macapagal, an ancestor. Her legitimacy is furthermore cemented by having gained power by orchestrating a revolution. The Macapagal branch of the Tondo Royal family, survived the persecution of the ages by changing their surname from "Lakandula" to "Macapagal". This makes the EDSA 2 revolution the only revolution in modern history, to have resurrected an ancient but lost royal dynasty.

The presidency of Arroyo was marred by a handful of political difficulties. Terrorism in the south began to fester and move up north while an unruly military began plotting coup attempts in the capital, Manila. Several natural disasters also posed a challenge along with political controversies popping-up here and there. Yet, despite the bleak situation, positive instances did occur. The economy continued to grow and stabilize, the strongest in over twenty years, despite a financial crisis, while relations with neighboring countries continued to prosper. Two democratic elections were also held at this time.

In 2007, the World Bank has declared the Philippines a "Newly industrialized country" while the prestigious Goldman Sachs Group has predicted that the Philippines will be one of the Next Eleven economies which will shape world trade. Their prophesies proved true during the onset of the Late-2000s recession when the whole world fell victim to the economic devastation wrought by Subprime Banking mess resulting in every industrialized country having a negative growth rate. Something which the Philippines defied by predicting a positive GDP growth rate during the 2009 fiscal year. However, Corazon C. Aquino, heroine of people power, died on August 2009. Immediately, plans are underway to declare her a saint.

Comments: A mess. If anyone wants this version instead of the much briefer one I've restored, discuss it here. Lambanog (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following:

This led to the rise of Philippine classical states.

Comments: Sentence doesn't seem necessary. One source is not easily accessible. The other source is now no longer available and link is broken. Lambanog (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following from the international relations section:

with varying issues such as the Philippine-American War, the Bell Trade Act

Comments: The section should be about recent or present concerns. Those two issues are largely in the past. If they need to be brought up they belong in the history section or the underlying relevance to the current context needs to be worded differently.

Removed the following from the natural resources section:

while banyan trees or the balete

Comments: Incomplete sentence with unclear meaning regarding balete.

Removed watermelon and replaced it with pineapples and bananas as income earning crops in natural resources section. I've never heard of watermelons being an important export. A citation is probably required either way and I have added a tag.

Removed the following from sports and recreation section:

Basketball, boxing, billiards, soccer, horse racing, chess and ten-pin bowling are the most watched sports.

Comments: Repetitive and based on a poor source. Lambanog (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following from sports and recreation section:

Horse racing and figure skating.

I'd feel more comfortable having a reliable source to point to for confirmation before including these. Lambanog (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

For those who want to improve the article further it might help to look at other articles about other countries that have already attained featured article status. I see that Indonesia, India, Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany, Peru, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Israel, Turkey, Cameroon, Chad, and maybe some others I missed share that distinction.

A quick perusal of a couple of them and some effort put into editing this article leads me to believe that the history section might be too long. The Demographic and Culture sections also appear somewhat bloated and the subject matter a bit forced to me. Strange as it seems I think there might also be too much content requiring citations. Citations make the editing process harder by including extra items that break the flow of reading while editing. My suggestion is to simplify the content trying to retain only the most essential and salient points and to try expressing them with maximum efficiency and cogency. Lambanog (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was looking over some of the references and noticed the formatting was inconsistent. One of the problems was that some citations used the {{citation}} template while others used the {{citepaper}} template. The former creates citations separated by commas, the latter separated by periods. I think the {{citepaper}} template gives cleaner citations. {{citepaper}} should replace all instances of {{citation}}. Lambanog (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Addicted04 has changed the image map from "Location Philippines ASEAN.svg" to "Philippines (orthographic projection).svg". Not sure it is appropriate for the Philippines but will leave it alone for now and just place the file names here for quick reference in case changing it back is desired. Lambanog (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Demographic section probably requires information on demographic breakdown by age.

I'm planning on possibly significant changes to the sections. I'm thinking of combining the mythology and literature section with something or removing it altogether. Combining communications with media might also make sense. Looking at other country articles that have attained feature status I notice infrastructure sections are seldom if ever present. If there are any suggestions or reactions or reservations to such actions go ahead and make them known. Lambanog (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the natural resources section: I think I've read somewhere that the Philippines is believed to have one of the largest untapped copper deposits in the world. Possible oil discoveries might also deserve to be mentioned. Carrageenan production might deserve mention as well although I'm not sure how large or significant it is. Lambanog (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be reassessed for "Feature Status"

Finally, after 3 years all the inadequacies to this article has been addressed since the original assessment. New sections have been added and info has been expanded and all the paragraphs needing citations have been referenced. Subsections which were originally lacking were added into and the structure has been condensed. I think the administrators should reassess our article fro Feature status. And hopefully they'll approve it. We deserve it, the Filipino people deserves it. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are still some glaring discrepancies, although with a few more edits maybe a review will get it up to good article status. Some things to note:

• "1st millenium C.E." confused me. I thought it was referring to the year 0 C.E. before thinking over your comment jolted me into realizing you were talking about the year 1000 C.E. There is a gap from 1000 B.C.E. to 1000 C.E. so I misinterpreted. [Read it again, somehow skipped over the last paragraph of Early history referring to 300-700 C.E. In light of this my complaint is unreasonable. Prefer the wording "dawn of" the 1st millennium.]

• Early history refers to "3 distinct kinds of peoples" yet going by the italics I see 4 namely Tribal Groups, Warrior-Societies, Petty Plutocracy and the Harbor Principalities of the Estuarine Civilizations. I think it should be rewritten and italics removed so it doesn't have the appearance of jargon.

• Filipinos in italics in the Colonial period section I think may be warranted but still open to possible disagreement from someone else. Biak-na-Bato as a place name and proper noun I don't think should be italicized.

I haven't read some of the later sections but a very quick skim makes me think there may be other problems or ways to improve content and structure. Some of the phrases used are very banal and general. It's the difference between limp writing and engaging writing and those sections probably need more work if the parts I've been involved in rewriting are an accurate indication. Lambanog (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article speaks of "300-700 C.E. then, in a following section, speaks of "the early years of the 1st Millennium C.E." I infer that the later period referred to is the years following 1000 C.E. WP:MILLENNIUM says, "the second millennium was 1001–2000". It seems to me that the mention here should say "2nd", not "1st". (I've just edited that WP:MILLENNIUM section, but my edits there had to do with BCE dates). Perhaps it would be better to say "In the years following 1000 C.E., ..." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, your suggestions have been listened to, and the problems has been addressed I have rewrote sentence concerning the 1st millennium, I changed the number of societies from 3 to 4 the paragraph and removed the Italics in "Biak-na-bato" but I didn't removed the italics in Filipino because its peers were also in Italics. Please give more suggestions guys. So that we can better improve the article in-order to gain the featured status. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC) iohjuio0h9ph8itrf7ygioy985t97gt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.83.196 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, I don't think it is in the best interests of the article to put up too much information regarding Erap and Gloria aside from the bare minimum, if even that. They are too contentious and draw too much edit warring. For an overview about the country, mentioning them is optional. Best to keep them at arms length and just link if necessary. Two other points:

• The royal lineage of the Macapagals will probably require a citation and that piece of information probably doesn't belong in this article and is more appropriate for a more specific article.
• Your phrasing suggests the plunder trial caused the 2001 EDSA Revolution and led to Estrada's downfall. That is inaccurate or at least confusing. The plunder trial came afterward and is different from the aborted impeachment trial. Someone unfamiliar with the events might not understand the difference.

As I have indicated before I think we've reached the point where less is more in some cases. The history section is large in comparison to other country articles and the other sections in my view are weak and could use some work. I think attention needs to be focused on them if this article is to be promoted. I need citations for the cuisine section for example, the Bayanihan dance troupe should be brought up in the culture section, and the economy section is uncritical among other things. To read the economy "improved" then later it "improved" again yet the country went from being one of the wealthiest in Asia to one that is now trying to catch up is risible. Something went wrong and it should be identified. From my point of view not enough Filipinos understand the concept of compounding growth and that's why they do not take a pathetic 3% growth rate year in and year out that barely registers above the population growth rate for the disaster that it is. If there is one educational tidbit of value that a Filipino reading this article should take away I would say that should be it. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have tried but failed to identify the following reference which is currently "20. ^ Page 52, Societies in Prehispanic Philippines" and have tagged it as vague. Please provide further information details or it will be removed.

I have also noticed the inclusion of the following reference: ^ "Prehispanic Source Materials: for the study of Philippine History" (Published by New Day Publishers, Copyright 1984) Written by William Henry Scott, Page 67, Paragraph 3. Note that it doesn't follow common citation format. Please use the {{citepaper}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, or {{cite news}} templates as appropriate in the future to facilitate editing and improvement of the article. One of the major reasons the review process has highlighted as holding the article back from promotion is the inadequate reference section. Lambanog (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, your dedication to giving more details is commendable but I fear it is not going to necessarily result in a better article. Please seriously consider condensing your contributions to the essentials and refrain from adding more. Please refer to WP:SS and feature article criterion 4. Your contributions look more appropriate in subarticles. I'm concerned a future edit might require large cuts in the history section if this article is to see improvement. It would be a shame to see your work and effort go to waste. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, a good lede serves as a brief crisp overview and introduction to the main ideas in the rest of the article. I don't think a reference to the British belongs there. Aside from one very brief episode in the history section they don't appear anywhere else in the article. A unique British influence in Philippine history, culture, politics, or economics is negligible and hard to detect next to others. The Japanese have a clearer case for inclusion in terms of history having occupied the country longer than the British, having a longer history with the country, and having a significant Japanese community in Mindanao pre-WWII, and I still think their are not significant enough to appear in the lede other than inclusion as a trading partner and that portion on the economy is optional in my view. The inclusion of the British in the lede raises false expectations in the rest of the article and I think it is necessary to remove. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article Criteria

For easy reference here is the featured article criteria that should serve as a guide for every edit aimed at improving this article:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

1. It is—
• (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
• (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
• (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
• (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
• (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
3. Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Lambanog (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, how many poeple have died in the Philippines due to the H1N1 outbreak? Ocenar (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question is off topic but this says 30 deaths out of around 5212 infections recorded as of October 17 2009. Lambanog (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

we shouldnt pu't the goldman saches Next Eleven.

we shouldn't put the Goldman Sachs "Next Eleven" articles since its very old dated 2005. and it no longer facter in the Philippine stock market crash of 2007 which we still haven't recovered fully from and the credit crunch of 2008-2009. this is not something we should brag about in this article. we sould remove this reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.214.62 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have such a source stating that the Philippines is no longer part of the Next Eleven? I mean that says that it is no longer part of the Next Eleven. Not info about a crash or the economic downturn. Speculating that the Philippines is no longer part of it because economic conditions is your personal analysis and original research. Unless you have a source that specifically says that the Philippines is no longer part of the Next Eleven. Then there is no valid reason for the removal. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is reason for a removal too. I kept it and added a reference only because it was there already and there was very little economic related information on hand. I was looking at it as more of a placeholder until more relevant information could be provided. To be truthful it sounds kind of tacky. Since we are talking about an entire country's economy, it should be considered a next to irrelevant distinction. Lambanog (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well according to Goldman Sachs (this has all the other info about the Next Eleven countries also), the Philippines is expected to be the 19th largest economy (nominal) by 2025 and the 17th largest economy by 2050 if the Philippines were to continue an average growth rate of 5.1%. The Next Eleven are countries with the highest potential to be some of the largest economies in the world. So the Next Eleven part does seem to be true. Frankly I think that this piece of information is significant because it shows that the economy is expected to improve and outperform many of the developed countries now like Canada and Italy for example.

According to the CIA, the growth rate for Arroyo's administration is around 5% which is around the expected average growth rate. 2008's growth rate was 3.8%. However, 2008 and 2009 probably 2010 are economically bad times. But the world economy is expected to improve. Goldman Sachs gave an average of 5.1% GDP growth over the time span of 40+ years. So factors like the economy growing by 7% and the economy growing by at a smaller rate of 3.8% are included. This is because economies tend have trends so there's a certain time when it goes up and it goes down. Basing on the info that yeah the economy is bad because of this time period is not enough to justify removal as 112.201.214.62 said because many of the Next Eleven countries are facing the same situations and many of the developed countries are also in economic recession. However this statement needs some changes:

while the prestigious Goldman Sachs Group has predicted that the Philippines will be one of the Next Eleven economies which will shape world trade.Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• "prestigious" is an unnecessary POV word.
• Next Eleven is used out of context. There are more than eleven companies that will shape world trade. The Next Eleven are just countries that have the biggest potential to be some of the largest economies in the world.

How about something like this:

Goldman Sachs has listed the Philippines as part of the Next Eleven, forecasting that country will be amongst the largest economies in the world by 2050. (ref is the source I used above)

How does that sound? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My main concern with the entire bit is it starts to come off as a sales pitch. It also seems pilit. My own reaction to such things is generally negative. I greatly prefer the article stick to the current facts rather than speculate about the future. Lambanog (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that the Next Eleven part was in two different sections:

Goldman Sachs includes the country in its list of the "Next Eleven" economies (copied from the article). This I don't have big problems with. How I perceived it is that Next Eleven is like the NIC's (Newly Industrialized Countries) which is a certain class or kind of economic group. This statement doesn't speculate. Current facts are good to have yes. But not everything in the article is fact like the population figures. They are current estimates, but not current facts. But we keep them to give people an idea. Anyways the other passage:

In 2007, the World Bank has declared the Philippines a "Newly industrialized country"[94] while the prestigious Goldman Sachs Group has predicted that the Philippines will be one of the Next Eleven economies which will shape world trade.[95] Their prophesies proved true during the onset of the Late-2000s recession when the whole world fell victim to the economic devastation wrought by Subprime Banking mess resulting in every industrialized country having a negative growth rate. This whole passage here about the Next Eleven part I think needs to go. This was the passage I was previously talking about. The wording just seems so unencyclopedic and it's already mentioned in the Economics section. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking at it I have to say that entire Contemporary period section is a mess. I've somehow managed to avoid looking at it previously since the article is so long. It should have been cleaned up a long time ago. Why is everyone so timid? Editing it can hardly make it any worse than it is currently. Lambanog (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirena

Perhaps some Philippine editors have interest in commenting on a large number of Philippine TV related articles nominated for deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell?

Since when did the Phillipines end the Cold War, free Eastern Europe, and end the US's presence in South America? Soxwon (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When it showed dictators could be deposed by mass popular action. Other precedents of course. Iranian Revolution and Baby Doc Duvalier's ouster in Haiti, but the 1986 People Power Revolution showed it could be done fairly peacefully and it sort of shamed the United States into not interfering so much in its allies' internal affairs by supporting dictators. In short order one saw dictators vanishing at a pretty quick rate, from Eastern Europe, South Korea, and Latin America. Just look at the timing. Lambanog (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's bordering on WP:OR. While I do think that it served as a sort of inspiration, I don't see the evidence for "shaming the United States" or that it was directly responsible for all of the other dictators being toppled one after another as was implied. Soxwon (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh you were asking editorially speaking, I was just giving you an explanation for a general query. If you are questioning if the subject belongs in the article, probably not in the form you took issue with, but it is certainly notable as a movement that may have emanated from the country and contributed to significant developments elsewhere. It was probably the first "color revolution". I haven't looked at the section thoroughly but it did contain references. If on examination they are up to par that may be sufficient to make WP:OR a non-issue. Lambanog (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one reference really addressed the subject, the rest were synthesized (a list of dictators in South and central America for example) for the purpose of pushing a point. Soxwon (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous edits

Gubernatoria, hello! Could you explain your recent edit? For example, the move of the picture of the Ifugao house to the culture section, would you mind if I brought it back up to the first history section? I also prefer the previous phrase "The name Philippines was derived from that of King Philip II of Spain" rather than the current "The name Philippines was derived from King Philip II of Spain". I prefer the former because the name was derived from King Philip II of Spain's name and it is Philip II's name that "that of" points to. The current phrasing gives me the mental picture of the name being derived somehow from his body or his person like some plant extract. Maybe that's being overly picky and maybe the current phrasing is proper anyway but I prefer the previous version. I await your comments on the matter. Thanks. Lambanog (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ifugao house is NOT prehistoric. The image was taken 2 years ago of an existing and relatively recently erected structure built in the traditional style. No-one knows how long that style has been traditional, since the weather in the Cordilleras prevents timber from lasting long enough to be assessed archeologically. In "Tuklas Sining: Essays on the Philippine Arts" published in 1991 by the Cultural Center of the Philippines, about 12 pages are devoted to traditional style wooden or bamboo houses. Different styles of houses throughout the Cordilleras are discussed and images are presented. Notably (p14) the comment is made "It is not known when and how Cordillera houses developed into their present form. What is clear, however, is that these house forms developed in isolation and were untouched by Western influence, for the Spanish colonisers did not succeed in bringing the region and its people under their rule." It is also quite clear that no historian or archeologist could reasonably support the labelling of that house photographed in 2007 as being "Prehistoric". Therefore the image does not belong in the pre-history section, which is why I moved it to the cultural section. I invite you to return it to the cultural section. Gubernatoria (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was not the one to restore the picture of the Ifugao house to its current location in the history section. I believe Wtmitchell was the one who restored it. I'm not crazy about the picture and if it were to be removed I would not object. Lambanog (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

History of Colonial Period AGAIN

A few months back I requested that the consensus paragraph on the Colonial Period was reinserted and respected [1]. The paragraph is the result of a long and productive debate in which many editors participated [2]. This was reverted, but again substantial changes have been made without the proper discussion on the Talk Page. The result is an excessively long section, plus a number of arguable, if not biased statements. Again, I request that the original consensus paragraph is respected:

• Spanish rule brought political unification to an archipelago that later became the Philippines, and introduced elements of western civilization such as the code of law, printing and the calendar. The Philippines was ruled as a territory of New Spain from 1565 to 1821, before it was administered directly from Madrid. During that time new crops and livestock were introduced, and trade flourished. The Manila Galleon which linked Manila to Acapulco travelled once or twice a year, beginning in the late 16th century. The Spanish military fought off various indigenous revolts and several external colonial challenges, specially from the British, Chinese pirates, Dutch, and Portuguese. Roman Catholic missionaries converted most of the inhabitants to Christianity, and founded the first schools, universities and hospitals. In 1863 a Spanish decree introduced universal education, creating free public schooling in Spanish .

If anybody wants to include additional information, or revise the contents of the section, please discuss them here.

JCRB (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello JCRB. I've only started editing recently so was unaware of much of the earlier discussion. I haven't read the archive. It does seem there are some who should know better though but yet are making dramatic edits despite the views of others. If you make your views known it will help clarify and make a consensus more obvious. I like that your version of the colonial period is shorter. You could just edit it the way you want instead of protesting here. If not maybe you could group all your preferred section versions in a subpage which can be referenced from this main talk page. Regarding the above paragraph the reference to code of law whether Nick Joaquin wrote it or not strikes me as open to question. Does he go into detail on that point? New Spain should be referred to more completely as the Viceroyalty of New Spain. I presume we're using American English so "traveled" would be the appropriate spelling. Do the Americans get any mention in this section in your preferred version? Lambanog (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lambanog. I did not change the text directly, as I wanted to clarify my position first. A much more concise version of the Colonial Period was there earlier, and now has been eliminated. In fact, not only the Colonial period, but the entire History Section was shorter and more concise. This took a lot of researching and debating, and needs to be respected by editors. I will reinsert the original version of the History section, and if editors wish to make changes to that, I would ask that they discuss them here. Regarding your question on Code of Law, I think Nick Joaquin's point is that a written set of laws such as a civil code did not exist in the Philippines before the Spanish period. Certain rules and customs were followed in indigenous communities, but they were not written down or registered in a formal way. Regarding New Spain, I don't mind either using the term "Viceroyalty" or not, as long it is linked to the relevant article. On spelling, I am happy with either British or American English. Regarding the American period in the History section, yes, I think it definitely should be mentioned. In the previous consensus version there are a few sentences dedicated to it. JCRB (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

About the controvertial but NOBLE edits to the History Section

1st of all I say, I am sorry for breaking consensus by vastly improving the history subsection. It was mainly by my efforts which lead to total editing of the history subsection. Though I am humbled by your efforts at concesus building, I feel my editions were called for. I mean, what's wrong with a long history subsection? In my totally and familingly patriotic and scientific assesment of it. Philippine history demands every last shred of coverage it shiningly and naturally is entitled to. The old subsection was plainly detached and unegaging. It lacked the logical flow of a long exposition and also lacked the soul of masterfully made epic narration. Though it is commendable it it's shortness and the dryness of it's mere recitation of mumbled facts.

But still, no other history on this entire planet is more epic than Philippine History yet we have articles in wikipedia such as the History of Germany (Click the Link) which is far longer than our own, yet they get away with it!!!! Whereas ours which is obviously more dignified and royally dramatic than theirs only get a shred of their sheen. It's Injustice I tell you! Moreso when it's our own countrymen undersestimating our own heritage. Sorry for the oration but im only defending the righteousness of my version, though it doesn't make yours any less correct. I just feel it right to mention the soul and substance of us a story, of us as people: of the sacrifices of Gabriella Silang, the tragedy of Magat Salamat's execution, the virility of British General William Drapier and the hand of the CIA in the Marcos dictatorship. These are HUMAN STORIES. These tug at the heart more and stimulate people to think. This course of action my new corpus for history section, in my humble is far more noble than just formally explaining concise and rote recitation of facts.

I ask forgiveness but I aslo ask for support. And as you oibseved I never broke one iota of info from the original concesus, I just expanded it, to give it body, systematized it to give it a mind and peoticized it to give it a soul. Forgive me but I passionately ask you: Please accept this. Thank You.

Truly Yours. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before I believe the history section to be too long and it needs to be trimmed significantly. In that I will agree with JCRB. However, I do agree with you too that some additional details made the section better. I do not agree that human stories are what make it better though, those require too much detail for the purposes of this overview article. My problem with JCRB's paragraph is that it is heavy on the Spanish point of view and doesn't exactly link to many other articles making it inefficient. A greater proportion of the paragraph should treat with specifically Philippine related subjects. As it is, the proposed paragraph is a little generic. A couple of sentences could apply to other Spanish territories of the time just as well and many of the ideas are expressed simply with the term "Spanish colonizers".

I think this Philippines article serves as a portal article of sorts and if well written should cover and link to all major topics one would associate with the Philippines whether the reader is a foreigner or Filipino. I consider a hyperlink to Jose Rizal, the Katipunan, Andres Bonificio, Emilio Aguinaldo and Philippine Independence to be essential. Links to the hacienda system, Gabriela Silang, Gomburza, La Solidaridad, La Liga Filipina, Marcelo H. del Pilar, etc. might not be as necessary but should be worked in if at all possible. This principle of covering a lot of major ground with an economy of words is what I am going by. Going by what I know of Philippine history as taught in schools in the Philippines there is a heavier weighting placed on the Spanish period than the pre-Spanish period. My recommendation would be to attempt to halve the pre-Spanish section and utilize any space saved there for maintaining the Spanish era section. Lambanog (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, that you restored the Contemporary period section to the old version. I would like to point out though that it contains a major historical inaccuracy. Please read the sequence of events of the People Power Revolution. Marcos was the initially proclaimed winner of the snap elections. It came before the People Power Revolution not afterward. Because of these errors the Contemporary period section MUST be changed. I will revert to the version that was there previously. If you still wish to keep this current version restore it but change it to be accurate or place a banner showing the section is undergoing major rewriting and that the factual accuracy is under dispute. Lambanog (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lambanog that the history section was too long. This is why we have sub-article, History of the Philippines so that the history section won't be so long. Not only was it too long, but there was also some language problems/NPOV problems. There's also way too many pictures from the old revision. I support the change.

Gintong, please assume good faith. Your edit summaries here and here are not assuming good faith and can be considered personal attacks which you may be blocked for. All that's being done is trying to help and improve the article, not to vandalize it. Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not mean you should act the way your acting. Please stay civil and remain calm. Everyone here is trying to improve the article, not hurt it. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Respect the Consensus Version

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw, although I appreciate your wish to improve and expand the History section, you need to respect the contributions of other editors, specially when a consensus was reached. Moreover, the length of the History section is excessive. That belongs in History of the Philippines, not in the main article. Also, this is not the place to be patriotic. Wikipedia is about neutrality WP:NPOV and verifiability WP:V. First, some of the statements contained in the pre-Hispanic section are doubtful, and the sources quoted are questionable. Historians like William Henry Scott have proved that Maragtas [3] was not an actual document from centuries ago, but legends that were collected and in some cases made up by Pedro Monteclaro. Second, the wording of some sentences in the Colonial Era section could be described as biased, for example: "and Juan de Salcedo's ransacking of the Chinese warlord Limahong's pirate kingdom in Pangasinan." Limahong was a Chinese pirate who raided coastal towns in the Philippines and southern China. To describe him as a "warlord" is strange. As for Salcedo's campaign against the pirate, it is inappropriate to call it "ransacking". It was simply a military campaign or punitive action. For your information, when Limahong was defeated, the Chinese government congratulated the Spanish authorities in Manila. Other examples of possible lack of neutrality are: "the Aztec and Mayan mercenaries López de Legazpi brought with him" or "The Spanish attempted to bring political unification to the Philippine archipelago via the conquest of the various states". Spanish rule achieved political unification with small exceptions, not just "attempted" it. There were no organized "states" in 15th century Philippines, only small chiefdoms or sultanates. I could go on. The point is that this version is too long, has doubtful statements, and carries possible elements of bias. For all of the above I will revert it to the previous consensus article. I would ask that all editors kindly respect this. If you wish to make additions or changes to the consensus version, you are welcome to discuss them here. JCRB (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you silly or something? A Sultanate is a state is a state no matter how small. By your twisted logic, it means Saudi Arabia and Brunei could not be organized states because theyre the Sultanates. Also the political entities existing in the Philippines were not chiefdoms. Have you ever read Chao Jung Ka? or the Brunei records? They all aclaim that they conquered kingdoms and principalities never "chiefdoms". And even new excavated artifacts such as the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and Butuan Silver Paleograph prove that they were kingdoms, they were not mere cheifdoms as what you imagine them to be. How dare you reduce the lords and kings of the past, your own ancestors into mere chieftains? Yours is an outdated mindset made by concensus decided 2 years ago...

Also I am apt in decribing his as a warlorld. If you look at a dictionary definition of the word "warlord" it said that a warlord is a person of authority using violence and the force of arms to maintian his/her hold on power. And Salcedo did ransack his kingdom. He burned it to the ground. Just read Nick Joaqin's Books and youll see. Although your points are valid by their own right I think I will just stick with my principle that the expansive section is better. You can edit all you want in the larger version. I won't care just as long as you retain it in the expanded form because there are so many other MORE expanded articles than this one in wikipedia and they don't give a care about it heck they even give them stars. I just want justice, that's all. Especially for our own article. Again what's wrong with a longs one?

Truly Yours

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please gain consensus, continuing to do revert for your own POV is unacceptable behavior. You've only shown us that this is what you want for your own personal feelings, not factoring in what the community is looking towards. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

My Reply:

WE HAVE ALREADY REACHED A CONSENSUS LAST TIME, also, I feel I am wronged and I'm just being emotional because I felt hurt cause I have the very interests of the community at heart moreso than what you say so. What tugs at my heartstrings more is that I thought this expansion "issue" was settled by a concesus two months ago.

The "issue": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#Reverted_a_possible_vandalism

Were resolved and a new concensus achieved. In my talk page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gintong_Liwanag_Ng_Araw#Resolving_dispute_to_Philippines Were 23prootie, labanog, JL 09 and me agreed that we settle the disputes with gentlemanly and scientific decorum. The new expanded exposition, the current edition (which JCRB and you are saying is wrong) is the result of our splendid little agreement.

However, this new concensus was brazenly challanged by 2 minority conservatives who would rather like to portray our ancestors running around half-naked as tribals belonginng to savage chiefdoms or insignificant sultanates rather than the royally classy individuals that they were, as proven by the cache of gold funrnitures in the "Surigao Treasures" and the "Tarsillas" of Maguindanao and Sulu. rather dislke a longer and more wholesome prose.

The main issue here is not the info itself because as you would all obviously know, The info in the new improved version (which JCRB & his motley band of inssurectionists wants to revert) has more sources and references than the old one. But rather the issue is the legnth which they fear is too wide and the article is too info-laden. Which I say is, though a valid complaint is an uncalled for fear because tons more country articles in wikipedia has an even longer history-subsection than ours. Yet they have been given a "featrued" status precisely because of that!!!

Evidences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#History (Jesus, just observe it! This article has 8 divisions in the history sub-sections with 800+ words but theyre still featured status!!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#History (If you thought Germany was bad you should see Russia. 7 divisions in the history-subsection with 900 words all-in-all)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain#History ( Now, Spain just takes the cake. 9 subdivisions and almost a thousand words)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia#History (Malaysia too, is sooo damn info-laden)

There are sooo many more from where that came from... (Have you seen the American and Mexican history sections?) but i'll stop there. And the version that i'm proposing is only an even condensed version compared to the behemoth those other nation-articles spewed forth from their bowels. Our edition only had 4 subsections in the history subsection despite the huge quantity of awesomness and info of Philippine History (From the Incipient Period to the Macapagal Era) presents, yet we are flatly rejected for our noble sacrifice and endless hours staying up late to help this article. That's why I feel hurt. But not for me alone, but for my comrades whose works were stomped on by minority conservatives who feel that we should diminish our achievements into bite-sized little morsels. Though I do understand them and I consider their complaints valid...

I feel it is a greater good to truly express our furstrations as a group (with me as representative of course) and oppose their attempts at reverting to an outdated old consensus.

Charmed and truly yours.

-Comrade: Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am in the understanding that you also agree with my thesis and I will now promplty revert this article to our shining and splendid little edition. *gentlemen's handshake.

I'd really like to know where the evidence is that anyone else agrees with you here. Discuss particular points on this page, don't just edit war on the main article -- especially when you're edit warring errors, such as duplicate sections, into the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I've been making a fair number of edits to this article as well I'd like to point out a couple of things then state my current stand.

A quick word count by my word processor of the history section for Germany, a Featured Article, after I cut and pasted it into its own document shows the following:

3072 words

16,631 characters (no spaces)

19,621 characters (with spaces)

57 paragraphs

284 lines

In comparison when I cut and pasted the last version I edited and restored of the Philippines history section which has significant contributions from Gintong Liwanag ng Araw and a significantly rewritten and more accurate Contemporary period section written by myself it came out like this:

3076 words

16,986 characters (no spaces)

20,021 characters (with spaces)

40 paragraphs

278 lines

My conclusion is that while the Philippines history section is long and pushing the boundaries, its length can still be justified. It is clear, however, that it is near the limit, that adding any extraneous items should be avoided, and that work should be put into trimming out unnecessary details and using more cogent language.

That said, while I think JCRB's preferred version is laudable in its aim to be pithy, it could be more thorough. I also think that possibly due to subtle systemic bias, that version does not supply enough of a Filipino perspective in terms of subject matter. I prefer the later versions of the Colonial era section Gintong Liwanag ng Araw and I contributed to and the Contemporary period section I rewrote. So my preferred working version for now would be the last one I restored: the revision as of 13:45, 26 November 2009. This is despite what I believe to be Gintong Liwanag ng Araw's propensity to include questionable and excessive details into the article. Gintong Liwanag ng Araw I hope you refrain from doing that. I recognize that whatever version is eventually supported by consensus that it will still need more work. 1 edit. — Lambanog (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is to keep articles from going over 100kb. This article is currently over 100kb. We need to also factor in that loading times might be too excessive for some people. I mean for me, it was getting really hard to keep straight and read the history section because it was so long (not to mention that the amount of pictures were getting to the point that they are distracting). Gintong's version nearly doubled the size of the article (partly due to making multiple copies of some section). Why can't we just expand the History sub-article since there are concerns that the history is lacking? This is what sub-articles are for. The sub-article is an FA, so we can also get some ideas on what to include and remove. While the current section about history in the main article is a lacking bit, it doesn't need to be in such detail.

If we take a look at some other featured country articles such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Japan, countries who also have a rich history, don't have a long history subsection. But these articles try to keep readers interested and is at good length while still keeping the most important topics on there. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This article serves to be the summary of all viewpoints mentioned into another sub-article. For example, we have the article Filipino cuisine. That article supposed to be expanded very much. Since Filipino cuisine covers Philippine food culture, then all things that about Filipino food must be found in that article. On the same hand, we have the article History of the Philippines. Being long does not mean that it passes featured article or good article status. Since we have the article History of the Philippines, then all edits about the history must go there. I agree with JCRB, this article must have the summaries of the main article that is mentioned here. What is the use of History of the Philippines if everyone can found all information here? Philippines is expected to show what is the profile of the country. In extensive encyclopedias, you cannot find a country and its history a similar article.

As I said, doubling the article size does not guarantee if the article was good written. I watched Gintong's edits since I encountered him during the edit war in this article, which, I believe his edits were not reliable if ever. He had Confederation of Madya-as copy-pasted, huge copy-pasted from an external copyrighted source which he admitted it User_talk:JL_09/October_2009#Help_me_paraphrase_the_.22Confederation_of_Madya-as.21. I don't know if these has been copied to a book or whatever printed material because it's hard to verify it. About edit warring, remember, Lambanog and Gintong, this article is watched by so many fellow editors because this article has been protected many times simply because of edit war. For JCRB's resolution that many of this article's section has been discussed by many editors, I guess, respecting consensus done in the past would be better, since this has always been a sensitive issue.

If you don't agree with the revisions here, then it is better to ask for a consensus here in the talk page. I believe it wouldn't be hard to call for somebody to discuss here since this is watched by almost many people.--JL 09 _^q?c 01:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Granted 100kb is a rule of thumb I would note the following featured country articles: Germany is in the neighborhood of 129 kb, Canada is around 133kb and Israel is at 144kb. Most country articles are at or around 100kb. I'd prefer to dispense with some photos rather than important text. My suggestions for slimming the article would be to remove the Mt. Apo photo, combine the mythology and literature section with something else, the same with the education section, maybe cut the infrastructure section that doesn't seem to do much, and cut out the not so good references since references also take up considerable space. In my opinion the History sections is closer to where it should be now but might benefit from some expansion. The Economy section is shallow and needs work too. Lambanog (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine I agree, ive taken into consideration your PoVs and I agree that I have made errors in defending wrong information I put up and which I am rightly castigated for and you have every right to edit. But I am glad that you all agree that having a long history subsection is justifiable. Therefore I implore the people at hand to accept the long subsection with 4 divisions but you can trim and edit it to your heart's content. I just want the format retained that's all, if ever Labanog and I made any wrong doings in it just edit the info but don't erase the whole thing. Another issue here is also about my propensity to be overly passionate with my words. Ill try to stop that. And also, I thank and praise my fellow editors who has defended our hard work and labor.

Now, shall we have a new consensus?

Resovled that: A long history subsection is justifiable and any error(s) in it deserves to be corrected just as long as the new expanded format is maintained in-order to give interpretative justice to a country with a overly epic history.

Yours Truly -gintong liwanag ng araw 58.71.29.98 (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Now all I ask is that.

You're acting too hasty and only considering viewpoints from Lambanog. He/she said it might benefit from an expansion, it and it's closer to where it is now along with other suggestions of trimming. This does not say, yes let's revert. JL 09 said that longer does not mean better and if you haven't noticed, he doesn't trust the reliability of your edits. This does not mean, let's revert to my version then. I said that your revision was too long and there were problems with language/POV. This does not mean I support this reversion and there is consensus. JCRB by his/her edits supports a much shorter section. There is no consensus reached. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Politeness

First I would ask Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw not to make ad hominem statements. Calling editors "silly" or "insurrectionists" is unacceptable in this Talk Page. Please discuss issues in a polite and constructive manner. Second, the consensus version was debated and agreed by many editors, not just myself. That's why it is a consensus, and that's why it deserves respect, even if many of those editors are not currently active. Changes can be made if they are properly discussed and agreed here. I am happy to discuss pre-Hispanic kingdoms, or pirate Limahong, or Juan Salcedo. But all information must be verfiable and balanced. The extended version was not only too long and detailed, it carried elements of POV and bias which are contrary to the objectives of an encyclopedia. JCRB (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag's reply:

Ok, observed. You can verify the information by just checking the reference. If it doesn't suit you or I made an error your welcomed to edit it. Im not trying to break concensus im just preserving the new one. I'm just defending our right to have a huge article.

That's all. You can trim the article whatever you want just as long as the format is respected. Thank You. 58.71.29.98 (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

PoV bias me? How? Our theses was supported by scholarly premises and cited with appropriate texts. Whereas it was more expository than the former one was. Now if you think it's biased your just welcomed to compare the citation between our new work and the old work you defend. Your work: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328253797. And our new work. Our new body-of-work contained 188 sources and references vis-a-vis your edition which only contained 155. The basic rule in scholarship my friend is the rule of the info-support. The more the corpus is supported by various and diverse sources the more apt it is. So therefore by the sheer weight of our scholarly labor on our edition, we gain legitimacy. Im sorry but thats something you should accept.

Thank You.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong Liwanag ng Araw, please assume good faith. By continuing to speak the way you're doing right now, it may be a ground for blocking. Thanks.--JL 09 _^q?c 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Gintong you're really pushing it. Like what I said on ANI, you have gained no consensus. From a review from SarekOfVulcan, he/she states that there are issues regarding you stating that there is a clear problem with you claiming consensus. Taken from ANI thread. This situation is no different. There is no consensus gained and any editor will agree by the discussion so far from the talk. Please stop reverting to your preferred version. It is clear that you're misunderstanding what the consensus is. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to revert it anymore it's quite frustrating to know that doing what you think is good is considered good-for-nothing. Instead ill just work hard at doing a concensus and appealing to your common sense and your sense of justice. What truly pisses me off is that; weve been expanding the history subsection for two freaking months now and nobody damn complained in the whole legnth of time about it, in fact the silence is a direct nod to letting us expand the work. Yet all of a sudden without any prior warning or even a discussion about it JCRB reverts the whole thing to an odler concensus. Efficetivly erasing 2 months of weat and labor, I was having a dang hard time then to juggle my semstral exams and expanding of this work but I didn't mind because I love to sacrifice for the common good. We were working on the assumption that the silence of the two months meant approval from the community at large. It would have been well and good if we were stopped right there and then but we weren't and now the history subsection has been expanded greatly to include the latest scientific breakthroughs and scholarly discoveries. Furthermore it was streamlined to form a coherent prose and lots of info though it was a bit excessive, which you have all rights to trim or whatever, im not impending your freedom to edit or whatever. Seriously our work for the past 2 months had more sources and made more common sense than the old consensus.

OUR VERSION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328581769 (Our version had complete dates and actually put the names of the important peoples establishing local states, CITED SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES & talked about crucial matters not discussed in the old version such as stating crucial: codexes, manuscripts or ancient incriptions; the militray campaigns by the Brunei sulatanate against the Kingdoms of tondo and Maynila, the all important surigao treasures, the destruction of Pirate-Lord Limahong, the mass murder of the prehispanic Philippine royalties in the Tondo Conspiracy and the weight of genocidal war commited by the British in the British Occupation of the Philippines (A significant event summarily ignored in the old concensus) Overall our edition was more comprehensive and contained a lot of more sense. With 188 sources and a lot more streamlined format which is correct since featured articles tih this expanded format such as Germany and Canada even has a more expansive subsection than ours. Also, I have never denied anyone's right to edit freely, you can trim our work or whatever you want just as long as you PAY RESPECTS TO TWO MONTHS OF SWEAT, BLOOD AND FAILED SEMESTRAL EXAMINATIONS.

Now just compare the old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328584614

TO OUR VERSION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328581769

And judge by common sense which of the two is more appealing.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Thank You.

New Consensus Now Achieved

Considering the course of our discussions I am now in the understanding that a new concensus has been achieved. I will now revert the edition to Labanog's most recent version of it. Thank You.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No consensus was achieved. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Elockid. You know fully well that concensus has been achieved because of the lack of repartee from the opposing party. "The man with the last word on the matter is deemed right."

Hence, I implore you to just use your subtle-sense and agree to the logic of our passionate quests for the expanded edition of the section. You have witnessed our delibetations in the matter and I trust that deep inside your heart you know we are right. But if you insist more on the formalities of things rather than the substance of it. I fervently wish you could trascend that... But, thanks for arbitrating anyway.

Truly Yours Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll suggest contacting the RFC team and the arbitration.--JL 09 _^q?c 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The only person who somewhat agrees with you is Lambanog and even Lambanog does not fully agree with you:

• As I've stated before I believe the history section to be too long and it needs to be trimmed significantly. In that I will agree with JCRB. However, I do agree with you too that some additional details made the section better. I do not agree that human stories are what make it better though, those require too much detail for the purposes of this overview article. My problem with JCRB's paragraph is that it is heavy on the Spanish point of view and doesn't exactly link to many other articles making it inefficient. A greater proportion of the paragraph should treat with specifically Philippine related subjects. As it is, the proposed paragraph is a little generic. A couple of sentences could apply to other Spanish territories of the time just as well and many of the ideas are expressed simply with the term "Spanish colonizers".

Where in this does Lambanog say we should reinstate to my version? He/she said that he/she only agrees with you that some not all details where needed. Furthermore from what I can tell is that Lambanog is in the middle, supporting both JCRB and I and yourself. This is not a consensus. You already know that JCRB and I oppose such a long section and I already explained to you the problems with your edits. Yeah and this:

• Granted 100kb is a rule of thumb I would note the following featured country articles: Germany is in the neighborhood of 129 kb, Canada is around 133kb and Israel is at 144kb. Most country articles are at or around 100kb. I'd prefer to dispense with some photos rather than important text. My suggestions for slimming the article would be to remove the Mt. Apo photo, combine the mythology and literature section with something else, the same with the education section, maybe cut the infrastructure section that doesn't seem to do much, and cut out the not so good references since references also take up considerable space. In my opinion the History sections is closer to where it should be now but might benefit from some expansion. The Economy section is shallow and needs work too. Lambanog (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere did Lambanog state that we should revert back to your work and the second to last sentence seems to contradict that Lambanog absolutely agrees with you as well as the first statement above. I don't know how you can get that consensus was reached out of any of this. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to revert it anymore it's quite frustrating to know that doing what you think is good is considered good-for-nothing. Instead ill just work hard at doing a concensus and appealing to your common sense and your sense of justice. What truly pisses me off is that; weve been expanding the history subsection for two freaking months now and nobody damn complained in the whole legnth of time about it, in fact the silence is a direct nod to letting us expand the work. Yet all of a sudden without any prior warning or even a discussion about it JCRB reverts the whole thing to an odler concensus. Efficetivly erasing 2 months of weat and labor, I was having a dang hard time then to juggle my semstral exams and expanding of this work but I didn't mind because I love to sacrifice for the common good. We were working on the assumption that the silence of the two months meant approval from the community at large. It would have been well and good if we were stopped right there and then but we weren't and now the history subsection has been expanded greatly to include the latest scientific breakthroughs and scholarly discoveries. Furthermore it was streamlined to form a coherent prose and lots of info though it was a bit excessive, which you have all rights to trim or whatever, im not impending your freedom to edit or whatever. Seriously our work for the past 2 months had more sources and made more common sense than the old consensus.

OUR VERSION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328581769 (Our version had complete dates and actually put the names of the important peoples establishing local states, CITED SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES & talked about crucial matters not discussed in the old version such as stating crucial: codexes, manuscripts or ancient incriptions; the militray campaigns by the Brunei sulatanate against the Kingdoms of tondo and Maynila, the all important surigao treasures, the destruction of Pirate-Lord Limahong, the mass murder of the prehispanic Philippine royalties in the Tondo Conspiracy and the weight of genocidal war commited by the British in the British Occupation of the Philippines (A significant event summarily ignored in the old concensus) Overall our edition was more comprehensive and contained a lot of more sense. With 188 sources and a lot more streamlined format which is correct since featured articles tih this expanded format such as Germany and Canada even has a more expansive subsection than ours. Also, I have never denied anyone's right to edit freely, you can trim our work or whatever you want just as long as you PAY RESPECTS TO TWO MONTHS OF SWEAT, BLOOD AND FAILED SEMESTRAL EXAMINATIONS which you all agred too by keeping silent and buidling on the expansion this past two months. Aslo dont play coy it wasn;t only us 3 who were expanding, others such as Gubanortoria and Boracay Bill also built and expanded on our work. This was a case of a silent concensus built upon a period of two months vis-a-vis an older concesus.

Now just compare the old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328584614

TO OUR VERSION: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=328581769

And judge by common sense which of the two is more appealing.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Thank You.

Please understand that there is an article named History of the Philippines, which all of your edits must be and deserves to be found. This article sorts summary of the history of the Philippines, not all of the Philippine history.--JL 09 _^q?c 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please watch your language. What about these edits by Gubernatoria where they cited your edits as vandalism?

• Edit 1
• Edit 2

The edits by Gubernatoria over the last two months weren't even expansion. I don't find deleting whitespace expansion at all. It's actually the opposite:

• Whitespace Removal 1
• Whitespace Removal 2

This edit doesn't even pertain to the history section. It's in the lead of the article:

• Edit 4

Finally this last edit by Gubernatoria over the past two months have been

• Edit 5

Which is to remove fiction from the section that you call "we edited".

Now about Wtmitchell/Boracay Bill. These edits are not expansion to the history section and most of these edits are not even in the history section:

• Edit 1 Reverting unexplained removal
• Edit 2 Not in the history section
• Edit 3 Here Wtmitchell is actually reverting your addition
• Edit 4 Not in the history section
• Edit 5 Not in the history section
• Edit 6 Fixing tenses is not expansion
• Edit 7 Not in the history section
• Edit 8 This one was a revert but the edit summary doesn't match since he's reverting an edit made to the external links section.

You want to add anyone else who you say expanded on the history section? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

When will you stop making baseless ad-hominem atacks against my character? Since you show humongous bias because you only attack errors in our work but never bother to review the errors of the old concensus? (Such as their lack of sources to support thesis & the inherent non-Filipino PoV it has? Furthermore JCRB doesn't even have a User Page yet why do you continue to support him/her?

Why oh why do you cause me so much heartache? Have you noticed the Gubanatoria didn't revert the whole thing. Only shaved off errors and according to the rules of concensus then, she agrees with the format but not the content. Likewise Labanog, I and JL continue to edit it without changing the format at all for the past 2 months. Trimmed erased or whatever but never reverted! If this was clearly against concensus how come people let this sort of editing pass-by for 2 whole months, it's like passivley agreeing!

Im not defending our content at all, neither am I saying im holier-than-thou, im just defending our format. Which is a labor of love.

Even though you guys hurt me for only doing this ONLY NOW (You should have done it earlier to save me months of sarifice and heart-ache which I will find an emotional need to justify since I invested so much in these) Im willing to forigve you if you just listen to reason.

Thank You

P.S.: And I'm willing to compromise even though I know in my heart that what I did was righteous. Since you would not stop trying to oppose democracy. We should all begin to work with a more expansive and righteous section than the old concensus but also less info-laden and detailed than the new one. Strike the golden mean, so to speak so that at least I can salvage some shred of decency from my 2 months of labors.

I'm suggesting we keep the subheaders: "Early History, Classical Epoch, Colonial Era and Contemporary Period" but trim down it's content. But it must contain important topics ignored in the old concensus such as the British Occupation, the Tondo Conspiracy, the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and the Japanese occupation and the Gabriela Silang Rebellion.

Truly and Heartfully Yours.

Gintong_Liwanag_Ng_Araw ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if you add the subtitles. I think they're quite helpful in navigating a long article. But like I said before and what other editors have been suggesting, you're welcome to add your editions to the sub-article History of the Philippines since this article is supposed to go on a higher breath of coverage on the history of the Philippines, the History section of the article does not need to cover every aspect of Philippine history. Also, why did you copy my sig? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No Consensus

"I corrected gramatical errors. If someone reverts this, then he is really stupid and I curse him with all my being. Nothing is as inexcusable as bad grammar in an international encyclopedia ", is the comment made by Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw to justify this edit [[4]] of his. I consider that comment to be destructive. No-one should call down any sort of curse on another person, whether known or unknown, in Wikipedia.

On 30 November 2009 Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw made the statement under New Consensus Now Achieved, that his edits were superior because the previous version did not mention "the weight of genocidal war commited by the British in the British Occupation of the Philippines (A significant event summarily ignored in the old concensus). " The only genocide committed about that time which is historically verifiable, was by the Spanish against those tribes which resisted attempted Spanish domination, and after the reversion of Philippine rule from the British back to the Spanish, by the Spanish against the Chinese in Manila because they had overwhelmingly supported the British in preference to the Spanish. These events have been ignored in previous histories of the Philippines because those versions were still dependent on pro-Spanish accounts which often relied solely on Spanish propaganda. Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw is invited to substantiate his assertion that there was genocide by the British, or retract his assertion and apologise for perpetuating propaganda.

Needless to say, I do not agree with his assertion that there is consensus over his many edits. Furthermore, I agree that re-writing should be in the specific History of the Philippines article with proper citations for all potentially contentious material, before a summarised version of the new consensus article can be inserted into the Philippines article.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw might also like to learn how to use his own personal sandbox where he can make changes and save them and continue to polish those changes for weeks or months if needed, and where no-one else can interfere with his editing, before copying the final text from his sandbox to the relevant discussion page for peer review. That is a scholarly approach, and one which is likely to avoid an enormous amount of friction and a great deal of ill-will. Personally I have found the sandbox method very useful for writing new articles and for major re-writes, and commend it to other interested wikipedia contributors as well. Gubernatoria (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest considering Will Beback's comment down below, under the RFC section.--JL 09 _^q?c 13:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that re-writing should be in the specific History of the Philippines article with proper citations for all potentially contentious material, before a summarised version of the new consensus article can be inserted into the Philippines article. Gubernatoria (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment. The British Occupation I think is not significant enough to be put on the main article, maybe in the subarticle, but not the main article. It wasn't very long and there weren't any big or long lasting consequences I can think off that resulted from the occupation. It's so insignificant that other encyclopedias didn't write about it such as Britannica. Some of the other topics that Gintong mentioned such as the Gabriela Silang Rebellion fit in the same category as the British occupation. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. JCRB (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It shows the Spanish occupation was not continuous and not without opposition. Also the Spanish opened their previously closed trade policy because of the British conquest. Further, the Chinese were expelled for decades from the Spanish Philippines because of their support of the British during the British occupation of Manila. Just because the Britannica has not yet caught up with more recent scholarship on this event doesn't mean the event is irrelevant. I am not a lover of British imperialism, but do think a balanced approach is better than censoring out an episode because of some editors' distaste for Britain or British colonialism. Some content should remain in this article, especially with a referral to the main article. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gubernatoria. I disagreed with the inclusion of the British occupation in the lead section but believe it should be mentioned in the history section. Since Gabriela Silang's revolt coincided with the British occupation, a brief sentence or two mentioning them to at least give a hyperlink to a more specific article should be workable. Lambanog (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ASEAN map

The infobox text clearly describes the former image of Philippines within ASEAN but we already changed the image to the orthographic projection of Philippines on the globe without ASEAN highlighted. I am trying to remedy this contradiction.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran let it off your chest 09:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Does anyone else think that these bits of information belong in the lead?

Its national economy is the 47th largest in the world, with an estimated 2008 gross domestic product (GDP nominal) of over US$ 166.9 billion (nominal).[15] Primary exports include semiconductors and electronic products, transport equipment, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil, and fruits.[3] Major trading partners include China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia.[3] Its unit of currency is the Philippine peso (PHP).

This is not significant piece of info. It doesn't help summarize what the article is about which is one the purposes of the lead. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That should go in the Economy section. JCRB (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have any input/thoughts? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I placed that section in the lead at a time when the lead seemed rather lacking as was remarked in a previous general assessment. I have since added to lead and consider the paragraph's inclusion in the lead now to be optional. The economy is of major enough importance to have mention in the lead and many references would follow such a format but I do notice that a more expository style seems to be the standard approach on other featured country articles here on Wikipedia which sometimes mention the economy in relation to other aspects such as education, health, or demographics in a lead paragraph. I would not object if the information was moved to the economy section which could use a great deal more facts and figures and expanded a little to give better context.

Lambanog (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment for Philippines

There is some sort of issues here: several section regarding the Philippines. Gintong Liwanag ng Araw and others expanded the article significantly, but JCRB, Elockid and the others said that consensus must be followed, and that revisions before Gintong's edits were done by consensus. WP:CONS said that if editors removed a user's insertion, then it shows clear disagreement. in order to push the insertion, there must be a consensus so that all of the community agree. In this case, no consensus has been reached yet, but Gintong keeps on adding his revisions/reverting edits back to his edits, citing a "consensus" (which in fact, there is no really a consensus) that he ultimately supports.--JL 09 _^q?c 14:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment from an uninvolved editor - This article is quite long and if people wish to cover the history in more detail it should be moved to History of the Philippines. For the general principle, see WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, there was an existing consensus on the reverted history section with (subsections). The current section that addresses the history of the Philippines is inferior to that version angd many topics are not thoroughly addressed. Besides, the current version has a biased on colonial and contemporary (note: Western) topics. ---23prootie (talk), 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.9.201 (talk)

Off topic. 23prootie is currently blocked for using multiple account. Does this signify block evasion?--JL 09 _^q?c 13:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If he/she edits while being blocked, then it does. That last IP used by 23prootie (the one above) was blocked for block evasion. 23prootie is also de facto banned so he/she is not allowed edit until he/she appeals their block to ArbCom. So in fact he/she is block and ban evading. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New Changes to History Section

I would encourage all editors to discuss changes in the History Section here. Long discussions have taken place over the history of the Philippines due to its complexity and varying points of view, but a consensus was reached. There is still room for improvement and the debate must continue, but this must be in an orderly manner, with neutrality and verifiability, and respecting the current version as a starting point. I appreciate the comprehension of all editors. JCRB (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be removing the phrase "such as the code of law, printing and the calendar". It was removed by another editor before me and I prefer it not be included as well. I do not see a special reason to single out these elements of Western civilization for mention. The Philippines didn't become a noted publishing center for example. One could as easily choose the hacienda system, guns, and tomatoes as Spanish contributions. You say it is part of a consensus paragraph. I looked at a previous page you linked to to support your claim and I didn't see people actively supporting the paragraph as much as making comments on other things or no comment. What you do seem to have support for is keeping the overall article size relatively compact. That is a separate issue. On this matter you now have at least two editors who have actively opposed this phrase. Unless other editors wish to make their thoughts known, I will be removing the said phrase. Lambanog (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to exclude "code of law, printing and the calendar". These were elements introduced by Europeans in the 16th century and the information is relevant and appropriate. If you read Nick Joaquin you will see that other Western advances were brought to the Philippines including: the plow, the wheel, shipbuilding, urban planning, stone architecture, the concept of municipality, the railroad, and others. However, only code of law, printing and the calendar were considerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pnged prominent. Please respect this. You said earlier you were not familiar with the previous discussion and consensus. Please read it here [5]. JCRB (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic here is that if we add Western contributions to the history and culture then we might as well add Indian, Malay, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, and indigenous ones as well. The history section is not intended to support a singular worldview. If you continue to push for the inclusion of those topics then you must also be prepared to accept the inclusion of other topics that is outside of your liking.--124.104.34.236 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as a heads up. This is most likely banned user 23prootie who is using the IP above. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is whether the history section is balanced or not and right now it appears to be tilted towards a Western or contemporary view. It is unfortunate that some try to mislead the discussion by adding trivial and unimportant topics. Also, JCRB's reasoning that consensus had been reached and is tilted towards their view is illogical. Consensus is yet to be reached or has been reached but is against JCRB's views (article history from October to early November).--124.104.34.236 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

JCRB, you are still the only editor I see so far actively supporting the inclusion of the phrase even after looking through the archive page that you refer to. Code of law has political implications making it open to NPOV concerns and begs for a particular definition regardless. Printing I wouldn't quibble with except that printing has little special relevance to the Philippines and is something any European nation could have brought with the same effect. The use of the calendar may have been promoted by Spanish institutions but it could conceivably have come via Islamic or Chinese traders. Due to the foregoing I oppose their inclusion. Unless Elockid, Howard the Duck, or someone else wants to chime in and make their position clearer I'll presume they don't have one on this matter. Lambanog (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Law codes, printing, and calendars, were in use in parts of the Philippines prior to the arrival of the Spanish. The Spanish brought the Gregorian Calendar, western European printing, and Roman-based law. That correction was made months ago, but some overly-enthusiastic editor has since reverted it back to the inaccurate Spanish propaganda. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No! The Philippines Is Not In Recession

THE PHILIPPINES’ breaching of its deficit cap this year should not be a major concern if the shortfall is narrowed as the economy picks up in 2010, ratings firm Standard & Poor’s (S&P) said.

There are still few economic indicators that the Philippines will not be in recession. One of these few indicators are:

1. 1 Filipino expats remittances
2. 2 Real estate growth
3. 3 Expenditures of Politicians on its coming Presidential Elections
4. 4 Infrastures construction in full swing
5. 5 Major real estate developers still launching more and more development to cater international market demands

S&P has assigned a "BB-" for the Philippines’ long-term foreign credit, a "BB+" for its local currency rating and "B" for short-term ratings. A "BB" rating is two notches below investment grade. It means an issuer of debt is seen as less vulnerable in the near-term but faces uncertainties. A "B" rating, a notch lower, points to increased vulnerabilities.

Life is always full of uncertainties anyway. Unlike the western countries which have been badly affected by economic crunch, the Philippines is still blessed to have something to be thankful about.

Don Magsino MBA Managing Director Ayala Prestige Ltd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmagsino (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this message was put here. Can you explain the reason? In any event an overview encyclopedic article should not be treated as a news report. Talk of whether a country is currently in recession or not unless of special note doesn't really belong in my opinion. 120.28.190.76 (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It states the fact, so inclusion of content that the country is in recession is not an off-topic debate. I am glad that these things are reviewed by third parties.--JL 09 _^q?c 14:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Health in the Philippines

I propose to merge this article with Health in the Philippines. Health in the Philippines is not large, but relevant. Sarcelles (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard practice it seems is for the health care of countries to have their own separate article. There has also been talk that this current article is getting too big as it is and that more material should be placed in subarticles. For these reasons I oppose the merge proposal and believe the separate article on health is fully appropriate. 120.28.190.76 (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

History section/Request for comment

I am seeking a request for comment regarding the "History" section of "Philippines" regarding two conflicting versions both claiming "consensus": a [lengthy version] advocated by Lambanog, 23prootie, & Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw and a [short and limited] one advocated by Elockid, JL 09 and JCRB. This discussion is primarily about the length of that section not the content and no discussions about neutrality or verifiability are currently present. I would like to note that here are no restrictions regarding the length of that section as seen in the "History" section of the "United States" article. Also the GA review did not find any controversy regarding the lengthy version of that section. A request for arbitration had been requested that has been rejected.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As an issue separate from my actual request, I am advocating for the lengthy version since it gives more comprehensive information about the history of the country.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lambanog's comments on [November 27].--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop removing {{spa}} tags? It is considered as talk page refactoring. It was posted here before you did out-of-this-article edits.--JL 09 _^q?c 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I placed a signature. It is not necessary and was placed there to discredit me. I know your tactics. Please avoid doing them.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the contemporary section of History of the Philippines article which discussed Gloria Arroyo's presidency. To have a more comprehensive description about the so-called reign of Arroyo, then a separate article is a must, like Presidency of Barack Obama (I guess everything Obama had, is already in Wikipedia) article. As what people here agreed to (and an extracted comment from earlier RFC), this article should only covered substantial things about Philippines' history. If we are going to lengthen the history section, then, what shall we do to this main article? It is very plausible to see things in this article that is not on that article, to see information that is not on the mainspace but is in here. Furthermore,

Analyzing WP:LENGTH, the article will tend to increase size exceeding 32 KB. Though it is okay to your browsers to open pages like that, think that you are not the only one who is looking Wikipedia. Think of all the people that will have the difficulty to view it.

In lieu with the previous notion, long articles may be subjected for splitting, and thus efforts will all be reverted into much simpler yet comprehensive details.

Furthermore, if Gintong and Lambanog pushes the article into GA or possibly FA status, then being long is not the basis of being GA or FA.

Finally, the main reasoning here is that there will be discrepancies on the information beforehand found in this article in the mainspace. And copying it again to the other one makes it not good, and duplicates every single word.--JL 09 _^q?c 15:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Click [show] to view list

For Reference From the "History" section of the "United States" article. History Main article: History of the United States Native Americans and European settlers See also: Native Americans in the United States, European colonization of the Americas, and Thirteen Colonies The indigenous peoples of the U.S. mainland, including Alaska Natives, are most commonly believed to have migrated from Asia. They began arriving at least 12,000 and as many as 40,000 years ago. Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After Europeans began settling the Americas, many millions of indigenous Americans died from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox. The Mayflower transported Pilgrims to the New World in 1620, as depicted in William Halsall's The Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor, 1882 In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. On April 2, 1513, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León landed on what he called "La Florida"—the first documented European arrival on what would become the U.S. mainland. Spanish settlements in the region were followed by ones in the present-day southwestern United States that drew thousands through Mexico. French fur traders established outposts of New France around the Great Lakes; France eventually claimed much of the North American interior, down to the Gulf of Mexico. The first successful English settlements were the Virginia Colony in Jamestown in 1607 and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. The 1628 chartering of the Massachusetts Bay Colony resulted in a wave of migration; by 1634, New England had been settled by some 10,000 Puritans. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, about 50,000 convicts were shipped to Britain's American colonies. Beginning in 1614, the Dutch settled along the lower Hudson River, including New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island. In 1674, the Dutch ceded their American territory to England; the province of New Netherland was renamed New York. Many new immigrants, especially to the South, were indentured servants—some two-thirds of all Virginia immigrants between 1630 and 1680. By the turn of the century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor. With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established. All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. All legalized the African slave trade. With high birth rates, low death rates, and steady immigration, the colonial population grew rapidly. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty. In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans (popularly known as "American Indians"), who were being displaced, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain; nearly one in five Americans were black slaves. Though subject to British taxation, the American colonials had no representation in the Parliament of Great Britain. Independence and expansion See also: American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, and Manifest Destiny Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull, 1817–18 Tensions between American colonials and the British during the revolutionary period of the 1760s and early 1770s led to the American Revolutionary War, fought from 1775 through 1781. On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress, convening in Philadelphia, established a Continental Army under the command of George Washington. Proclaiming that "all men are created equal" and endowed with "certain unalienable Rights," the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted largely by Thomas Jefferson, on July 4, 1776. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated until 1789. After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River. A constitutional convention was organized in 1787 by those wishing to establish a strong national government, with powers of taxation. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791. Attitudes toward slavery were shifting; a clause in the Constitution protected the African slave trade only until 1808. The Northern states abolished slavery between 1780 and 1804, leaving the slave states of the South as defenders of the "peculiar institution." The Second Great Awakening, beginning about 1800, made evangelicalism a force behind various social reform movements, including abolitionism. Territorial acquisitions by date Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land. The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size. The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism. A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845. The concept of Manifest Destiny was popularized during this time. The 1846 Oregon Treaty with Britain led to U.S. control of the present-day American Northwest. The U.S. victory in the Mexican–American War resulted in the 1848 cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest. The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 further spurred western migration. New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans. Over a half-century, up to 40 million American bison, or buffalo, were slaughtered for skins and meat and to ease the railways' spread. The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures. Civil War and industrialization See also: American Civil War, Reconstruction era of the United States, and Spanish-American War Battle of Gettysburg, lithograph by Currier & Ives, ca. 1863 Tensions between slave and free states mounted with arguments over the relationship between the state and federal governments, as well as violent conflicts over the spread of slavery into new states. Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the largely antislavery Republican Party, was elected president in 1860. Before he took office, seven slave states declared their secession—which the federal government maintained was illegal—and formed the Confederate States of America. With the Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter, the American Civil War began and four more slave states joined the Confederacy. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declared slaves in the Confederacy to be free. Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution ensured freedom for the nearly four million African Americans who had been slaves, made them citizens, and gave them voting rights. The war and its resolution led to a substantial increase in federal power. Immigrants at Ellis Island, New York Harbor, 1902 After the war, the assassination of Lincoln radicalized Republican Reconstruction policies aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves. The resolution of the disputed 1876 presidential election by the Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction; Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans. In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe hastened the country's industrialization. The wave of immigration, lasting until 1929, provided labor and transformed American culture. National infrastructure development spurred economic growth. The 1867 Alaska purchase from Russia completed the country's mainland expansion. The Wounded Knee massacre in 1890 was the last major armed conflict of the Indian Wars. In 1893, the indigenous monarchy of the Pacific Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in a coup led by American residents; the United States annexed the archipelago in 1898. Victory in the Spanish–American War the same year demonstrated that the United States was a world power and led to the annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The Philippines gained independence a half-century later; Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. World War I, Great Depression, and World War II See also: American Expeditionary Force, Great Depression in the United States, and Military history of the United States during World War II An abandoned farm in South Dakota during the Dust Bowl, 1936 At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the United States remained neutral. Most Americans sympathized with the British and French, although many opposed intervention. In 1917, the United States joined the Allies, turning the tide against the Central Powers. After the war, the Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which established the League of Nations. The country pursued a policy of unilateralism, verging on isolationism. In 1920, the women's rights movement won passage of a constitutional amendment granting women's suffrage. The prosperity of the Roaring Twenties ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that triggered the Great Depression. After his election as president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with the New Deal, a range of policies increasing government intervention in the economy. The Dust Bowl of the mid-1930s impoverished many farming communities and spurred a new wave of western migration. Soldiers of the U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division landing in Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944 The United States, effectively neutral during World War II's early stages after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939, began supplying materiel to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program. On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to join the Allies against the Axis powers. Participation in the war spurred capital investment and industrial capacity. Among the major combatants, the United States was the only nation to become richer—indeed, far richer—instead of poorer because of the war. Allied conferences at Bretton Woods and Yalta outlined a new system of international organizations that placed the United States and Soviet Union at the center of world affairs. As victory was won in Europe, a 1945 international conference held in San Francisco produced the United Nations Charter, which became active after the war. The United States, having developed the first nuclear weapons, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war. Cold War and protest politics See also: Cold War, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), and Vietnam War Martin Luther King, Jr. delivering his "I Have a Dream" speech, 1963 The United States and Soviet Union jockeyed for power after World War II during the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The United States promoted liberal democracy and capitalism, while the Soviet Union promoted communism and a centrally planned economy. Both supported dictatorships and engaged in proxy wars. American troops fought Communist Chinese forces in the Korean War of 1950–53. The House Un-American Activities Committee pursued a series of investigations into suspected leftist subversion, while Senator Joseph McCarthy became the figurehead of anticommunist sentiment. The 1961 Soviet launch of the first manned spaceflight prompted President John F. Kennedy's call for the United States to be first to land "a man on the moon," achieved in 1969. Kennedy also faced a tense nuclear showdown with Soviet forces in Cuba. Meanwhile, the United States experienced sustained economic expansion. A growing civil rights movement, symbolized and led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and James Bevel, used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination. Following Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, expanded a proxy war in Southeast Asia into the unsuccessful Vietnam War. A widespread countercultural movement grew, fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and others led a new wave of feminism that sought political, social, and economic equality for women. As a result of the Watergate scandal, in 1974 Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign, to avoid being impeached on charges including obstruction of justice and abuse of power; he was succeeded by Vice President Gerald Ford. The Jimmy Carter administration of the late 1970s was marked by stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis. The election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 heralded a rightward shift in American politics, reflected in major changes in taxation and spending priorities. His second term in office brought both the Iran-Contra scandal and significant diplomatic progress with the Soviet Union. The subsequent Soviet collapse ended the Cold War. Contemporary era See also: September 11 attacks, Iraq War, and Late-2000s recession The World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001 Under President George H. W. Bush, the United States took a lead role in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War. The longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history—from March 1991 to March 2001—encompassed the Bill Clinton administration and the dot-com bubble. A civil lawsuit and sex scandal led to Clinton's impeachment in 1998, but he remained in office. The 2000 presidential election, one of the closest in American history, was resolved by a U.S. Supreme Court decision—George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, became president. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people. In response, the Bush administration launched a "War on Terrorism". In late 2001, U.S. forces led an invasion of Afghanistan, removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps. Taliban insurgents continue to fight a guerrilla war. In 2002, the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on controversial grounds. Lacking the support of NATO or an explicit UN mandate for military intervention, Bush organized a Coalition of the Willing; coalition forces preemptively invaded Iraq in 2003, removing dictator and former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused severe destruction along much of the Gulf Coast, devastating New Orleans. On November 4, 2008, amid a global economic recession, Barack Obama was elected president. He is the first African American to hold the office.

Comments on the "History" section

That section does not mention the nearly-ten-year presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, a previous version did. I believe that version should be restored.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

History section/Request for comment

I am seeking a request for comment regarding the "History" section of "Philippines" regarding two conflicting versions both claiming "consensus": a [lengthy version] advocated by Lambanog, 23prootie, & Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw and a [short and limited] one advocated by Elockid, JL 09 and JCRB. This discussion is primarily about the length of that section not the content and no discussions about neutrality or verifiability are currently present. I would like to note that here are no restrictions regarding the length of that section as seen in the "History" section of the "United States" article. Also the GA review did not find any controversy regarding the lengthy version of that section. A request for arbitration had been requested that has been rejected.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As an issue separate from my actual request, I am advocating for the lengthy version since it gives more comprehensive information about the history of the country.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lambanog's comments on [November 27].--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

From the "History" section of the "United States" article.

Would you please stop removing {{spa}} tags? It is considered as talk page refactoring. It was posted here before you did out-of-this-article edits. This wasn't a hijack, you tend to be in an edit warring behaviourism. Remember that you're posting and reposting talk comments which is really bad.--JL 09 _^q?c 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We have the contemporary section of History of the Philippines article which discussed Gloria Arroyo's presidency. To have a more comprehensive description about the so-called reign of Arroyo, then a separate article is a must, like Presidency of Barack Obama (I guess everything Obama had, is already in Wikipedia) article. As what people here agreed to (and an extracted comment from earlier RFC), this article should only covered substantial things about Philippines' history. If we are going to lengthen the history section, then, what shall we do to this main article? It is very plausible to see things in this article that is not on that article, to see information that is not on the mainspace but is in here. Furthermore,

Analyzing WP:LENGTH, the article will tend to increase size exceeding 32 KB. Though it is okay to your browsers to open pages like that, think that you are not the only one who is looking Wikipedia. Think of all the people that will have the difficulty to view it.

In lieu with the previous notion, long articles may be subjected for splitting, and thus efforts will all be reverted into much simpler yet comprehensive details.

Furthermore, if Gintong and Lambanog pushes the article into GA or possibly FA status, then being long is not the basis of being GA or FA.

Finally, the main reasoning here is that there will be discrepancies on the information beforehand found in this article in the mainspace. And copying it again to the other one makes it not good, and duplicates every single word.--JL 09 _^q?c 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have liked a 'separate opinion' from an 'uninvolved editor' so I'll repost this again and please avoid commenting. This is not a debate meant for you.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Click [show] to view list

History Main article: History of the United States Native Americans and European settlers See also: Native Americans in the United States, European colonization of the Americas, and Thirteen Colonies The indigenous peoples of the U.S. mainland, including Alaska Natives, are most commonly believed to have migrated from Asia. They began arriving at least 12,000 and as many as 40,000 years ago. Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After Europeans began settling the Americas, many millions of indigenous Americans died from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox. The Mayflower transported Pilgrims to the New World in 1620, as depicted in William Halsall's The Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor, 1882 In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. On April 2, 1513, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León landed on what he called "La Florida"—the first documented European arrival on what would become the U.S. mainland. Spanish settlements in the region were followed by ones in the present-day southwestern United States that drew thousands through Mexico. French fur traders established outposts of New France around the Great Lakes; France eventually claimed much of the North American interior, down to the Gulf of Mexico. The first successful English settlements were the Virginia Colony in Jamestown in 1607 and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. The 1628 chartering of the Massachusetts Bay Colony resulted in a wave of migration; by 1634, New England had been settled by some 10,000 Puritans. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, about 50,000 convicts were shipped to Britain's American colonies. Beginning in 1614, the Dutch settled along the lower Hudson River, including New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island. In 1674, the Dutch ceded their American territory to England; the province of New Netherland was renamed New York. Many new immigrants, especially to the South, were indentured servants—some two-thirds of all Virginia immigrants between 1630 and 1680. By the turn of the century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor. With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established. All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. All legalized the African slave trade. With high birth rates, low death rates, and steady immigration, the colonial population grew rapidly. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty. In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans (popularly known as "American Indians"), who were being displaced, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain; nearly one in five Americans were black slaves. Though subject to British taxation, the American colonials had no representation in the Parliament of Great Britain. Independence and expansion See also: American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, and Manifest Destiny Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull, 1817–18 Tensions between American colonials and the British during the revolutionary period of the 1760s and early 1770s led to the American Revolutionary War, fought from 1775 through 1781. On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress, convening in Philadelphia, established a Continental Army under the command of George Washington. Proclaiming that "all men are created equal" and endowed with "certain unalienable Rights," the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted largely by Thomas Jefferson, on July 4, 1776. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated until 1789. After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River. A constitutional convention was organized in 1787 by those wishing to establish a strong national government, with powers of taxation. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791. Attitudes toward slavery were shifting; a clause in the Constitution protected the African slave trade only until 1808. The Northern states abolished slavery between 1780 and 1804, leaving the slave states of the South as defenders of the "peculiar institution." The Second Great Awakening, beginning about 1800, made evangelicalism a force behind various social reform movements, including abolitionism. Territorial acquisitions by date Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land. The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size. The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism. A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845. The concept of Manifest Destiny was popularized during this time. The 1846 Oregon Treaty with Britain led to U.S. control of the present-day American Northwest. The U.S. victory in the Mexican–American War resulted in the 1848 cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest. The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 further spurred western migration. New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans. Over a half-century, up to 40 million American bison, or buffalo, were slaughtered for skins and meat and to ease the railways' spread. The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures. Civil War and industrialization See also: American Civil War, Reconstruction era of the United States, and Spanish-American War Battle of Gettysburg, lithograph by Currier & Ives, ca. 1863 Tensions between slave and free states mounted with arguments over the relationship between the state and federal governments, as well as violent conflicts over the spread of slavery into new states. Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the largely antislavery Republican Party, was elected president in 1860. Before he took office, seven slave states declared their secession—which the federal government maintained was illegal—and formed the Confederate States of America. With the Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter, the American Civil War began and four more slave states joined the Confederacy. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declared slaves in the Confederacy to be free. Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution ensured freedom for the nearly four million African Americans who had been slaves, made them citizens, and gave them voting rights. The war and its resolution led to a substantial increase in federal power. Immigrants at Ellis Island, New York Harbor, 1902 After the war, the assassination of Lincoln radicalized Republican Reconstruction policies aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves. The resolution of the disputed 1876 presidential election by the Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction; Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans. In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe hastened the country's industrialization. The wave of immigration, lasting until 1929, provided labor and transformed American culture. National infrastructure development spurred economic growth. The 1867 Alaska purchase from Russia completed the country's mainland expansion. The Wounded Knee massacre in 1890 was the last major armed conflict of the Indian Wars. In 1893, the indigenous monarchy of the Pacific Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in a coup led by American residents; the United States annexed the archipelago in 1898. Victory in the Spanish–American War the same year demonstrated that the United States was a world power and led to the annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The Philippines gained independence a half-century later; Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. World War I, Great Depression, and World War II See also: American Expeditionary Force, Great Depression in the United States, and Military history of the United States during World War II An abandoned farm in South Dakota during the Dust Bowl, 1936 At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the United States remained neutral. Most Americans sympathized with the British and French, although many opposed intervention. In 1917, the United States joined the Allies, turning the tide against the Central Powers. After the war, the Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which established the League of Nations. The country pursued a policy of unilateralism, verging on isolationism. In 1920, the women's rights movement won passage of a constitutional amendment granting women's suffrage. The prosperity of the Roaring Twenties ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that triggered the Great Depression. After his election as president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with the New Deal, a range of policies increasing government intervention in the economy. The Dust Bowl of the mid-1930s impoverished many farming communities and spurred a new wave of western migration. Soldiers of the U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division landing in Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944 The United States, effectively neutral during World War II's early stages after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939, began supplying materiel to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program. On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to join the Allies against the Axis powers. Participation in the war spurred capital investment and industrial capacity. Among the major combatants, the United States was the only nation to become richer—indeed, far richer—instead of poorer because of the war. Allied conferences at Bretton Woods and Yalta outlined a new system of international organizations that placed the United States and Soviet Union at the center of world affairs. As victory was won in Europe, a 1945 international conference held in San Francisco produced the United Nations Charter, which became active after the war. The United States, having developed the first nuclear weapons, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war. Cold War and protest politics See also: Cold War, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), and Vietnam War Martin Luther King, Jr. delivering his "I Have a Dream" speech, 1963 The United States and Soviet Union jockeyed for power after World War II during the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The United States promoted liberal democracy and capitalism, while the Soviet Union promoted communism and a centrally planned economy. Both supported dictatorships and engaged in proxy wars. American troops fought Communist Chinese forces in the Korean War of 1950–53. The House Un-American Activities Committee pursued a series of investigations into suspected leftist subversion, while Senator Joseph McCarthy became the figurehead of anticommunist sentiment. The 1961 Soviet launch of the first manned spaceflight prompted President John F. Kennedy's call for the United States to be first to land "a man on the moon," achieved in 1969. Kennedy also faced a tense nuclear showdown with Soviet forces in Cuba. Meanwhile, the United States experienced sustained economic expansion. A growing civil rights movement, symbolized and led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and James Bevel, used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination. Following Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, expanded a proxy war in Southeast Asia into the unsuccessful Vietnam War. A widespread countercultural movement grew, fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and others led a new wave of feminism that sought political, social, and economic equality for women. As a result of the Watergate scandal, in 1974 Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign, to avoid being impeached on charges including obstruction of justice and abuse of power; he was succeeded by Vice President Gerald Ford. The Jimmy Carter administration of the late 1970s was marked by stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis. The election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 heralded a rightward shift in American politics, reflected in major changes in taxation and spending priorities. His second term in office brought both the Iran-Contra scandal and significant diplomatic progress with the Soviet Union. The subsequent Soviet collapse ended the Cold War. Contemporary era See also: September 11 attacks, Iraq War, and Late-2000s recession The World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001 Under President George H. W. Bush, the United States took a lead role in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War. The longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history—from March 1991 to March 2001—encompassed the Bill Clinton administration and the dot-com bubble. A civil lawsuit and sex scandal led to Clinton's impeachment in 1998, but he remained in office. The 2000 presidential election, one of the closest in American history, was resolved by a U.S. Supreme Court decision—George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, became president. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people. In response, the Bush administration launched a "War on Terrorism". In late 2001, U.S. forces led an invasion of Afghanistan, removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps. Taliban insurgents continue to fight a guerrilla war. In 2002, the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on controversial grounds. Lacking the support of NATO or an explicit UN mandate for military intervention, Bush organized a Coalition of the Willing; coalition forces preemptively invaded Iraq in 2003, removing dictator and former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused severe destruction along much of the Gulf Coast, devastating New Orleans. On November 4, 2008, amid a global economic recession, Barack Obama was elected president. He is the first African American to hold the office.

History section/Request for comment

I am seeking a request for comment regarding the "History" section of "Philippines" regarding two conflicting versions both claiming "consensus": a [lengthy version] advocated by Lambanog, 23prootie, & Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw and a [short and limited] one advocated by Elockid, JL 09 and JCRB. This discussion is primarily about the length of that section not the content and no discussions about neutrality or verifiability are currently present. I would like to note that here are no restrictions regarding the length of that section as seen in the "History" section of the "United States" article. Also the GA review did not find any controversy regarding the lengthy version of that section. A request for arbitration had been requested that has been rejected.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As an issue separate from my actual request, I am advocating for the lengthy version since it gives more comprehensive information about the history of the country.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lambanog's comments on [November 27].--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop removing {{spa}} tags? It is considered as talk page refactoring. It was posted here before you did out-of-this-article edits.--JL 09 _^q?c 15:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I placed a signature. It is not necessary and was placed there to discredit me. I know your tactics. Please avoid doing them.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Click [show] to view list

For Reference From the "History" section of the "United States" article. History Main article: History of the United States Native Americans and European settlers See also: Native Americans in the United States, European colonization of the Americas, and Thirteen Colonies The indigenous peoples of the U.S. mainland, including Alaska Natives, are most commonly believed to have migrated from Asia. They began arriving at least 12,000 and as many as 40,000 years ago. Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After Europeans began settling the Americas, many millions of indigenous Americans died from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox. The Mayflower transported Pilgrims to the New World in 1620, as depicted in William Halsall's The Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor, 1882 In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. On April 2, 1513, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León landed on what he called "La Florida"—the first documented European arrival on what would become the U.S. mainland. Spanish settlements in the region were followed by ones in the present-day southwestern United States that drew thousands through Mexico. French fur traders established outposts of New France around the Great Lakes; France eventually claimed much of the North American interior, down to the Gulf of Mexico. The first successful English settlements were the Virginia Colony in Jamestown in 1607 and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. The 1628 chartering of the Massachusetts Bay Colony resulted in a wave of migration; by 1634, New England had been settled by some 10,000 Puritans. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, about 50,000 convicts were shipped to Britain's American colonies. Beginning in 1614, the Dutch settled along the lower Hudson River, including New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island. In 1674, the Dutch ceded their American territory to England; the province of New Netherland was renamed New York. Many new immigrants, especially to the South, were indentured servants—some two-thirds of all Virginia immigrants between 1630 and 1680. By the turn of the century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor. With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established. All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. All legalized the African slave trade. With high birth rates, low death rates, and steady immigration, the colonial population grew rapidly. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty. In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans (popularly known as "American Indians"), who were being displaced, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain; nearly one in five Americans were black slaves. Though subject to British taxation, the American colonials had no representation in the Parliament of Great Britain. Independence and expansion See also: American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, and Manifest Destiny Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull, 1817–18 Tensions between American colonials and the British during the revolutionary period of the 1760s and early 1770s led to the American Revolutionary War, fought from 1775 through 1781. On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress, convening in Philadelphia, established a Continental Army under the command of George Washington. Proclaiming that "all men are created equal" and endowed with "certain unalienable Rights," the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted largely by Thomas Jefferson, on July 4, 1776. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated until 1789. After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River. A constitutional convention was organized in 1787 by those wishing to establish a strong national government, with powers of taxation. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791. Attitudes toward slavery were shifting; a clause in the Constitution protected the African slave trade only until 1808. The Northern states abolished slavery between 1780 and 1804, leaving the slave states of the South as defenders of the "peculiar institution." The Second Great Awakening, beginning about 1800, made evangelicalism a force behind various social reform movements, including abolitionism. Territorial acquisitions by date Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land. The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size. The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism. A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845. The concept of Manifest Destiny was popularized during this time. The 1846 Oregon Treaty with Britain led to U.S. control of the present-day American Northwest. The U.S. victory in the Mexican–American War resulted in the 1848 cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest. The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 further spurred western migration. New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans. Over a half-century, up to 40 million American bison, or buffalo, were slaughtered for skins and meat and to ease the railways' spread. The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures. Civil War and industrialization See also: American Civil War, Reconstruction era of the United States, and Spanish-American War Battle of Gettysburg, lithograph by Currier & Ives, ca. 1863 Tensions between slave and free states mounted with arguments over the relationship between the state and federal governments, as well as violent conflicts over the spread of slavery into new states. Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the largely antislavery Republican Party, was elected president in 1860. Before he took office, seven slave states declared their secession—which the federal government maintained was illegal—and formed the Confederate States of America. With the Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter, the American Civil War began and four more slave states joined the Confederacy. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declared slaves in the Confederacy to be free. Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution ensured freedom for the nearly four million African Americans who had been slaves, made them citizens, and gave them voting rights. The war and its resolution led to a substantial increase in federal power. Immigrants at Ellis Island, New York Harbor, 1902 After the war, the assassination of Lincoln radicalized Republican Reconstruction policies aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves. The resolution of the disputed 1876 presidential election by the Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction; Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans. In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe hastened the country's industrialization. The wave of immigration, lasting until 1929, provided labor and transformed American culture. National infrastructure development spurred economic growth. The 1867 Alaska purchase from Russia completed the country's mainland expansion. The Wounded Knee massacre in 1890 was the last major armed conflict of the Indian Wars. In 1893, the indigenous monarchy of the Pacific Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in a coup led by American residents; the United States annexed the archipelago in 1898. Victory in the Spanish–American War the same year demonstrated that the United States was a world power and led to the annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The Philippines gained independence a half-century later; Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. World War I, Great Depression, and World War II See also: American Expeditionary Force, Great Depression in the United States, and Military history of the United States during World War II An abandoned farm in South Dakota during the Dust Bowl, 1936 At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the United States remained neutral. Most Americans sympathized with the British and French, although many opposed intervention. In 1917, the United States joined the Allies, turning the tide against the Central Powers. After the war, the Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which established the League of Nations. The country pursued a policy of unilateralism, verging on isolationism. In 1920, the women's rights movement won passage of a constitutional amendment granting women's suffrage. The prosperity of the Roaring Twenties ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that triggered the Great Depression. After his election as president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with the New Deal, a range of policies increasing government intervention in the economy. The Dust Bowl of the mid-1930s impoverished many farming communities and spurred a new wave of western migration. Soldiers of the U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division landing in Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944 The United States, effectively neutral during World War II's early stages after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939, began supplying materiel to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program. On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to join the Allies against the Axis powers. Participation in the war spurred capital investment and industrial capacity. Among the major combatants, the United States was the only nation to become richer—indeed, far richer—instead of poorer because of the war. Allied conferences at Bretton Woods and Yalta outlined a new system of international organizations that placed the United States and Soviet Union at the center of world affairs. As victory was won in Europe, a 1945 international conference held in San Francisco produced the United Nations Charter, which became active after the war. The United States, having developed the first nuclear weapons, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war. Cold War and protest politics See also: Cold War, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), and Vietnam War Martin Luther King, Jr. delivering his "I Have a Dream" speech, 1963 The United States and Soviet Union jockeyed for power after World War II during the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The United States promoted liberal democracy and capitalism, while the Soviet Union promoted communism and a centrally planned economy. Both supported dictatorships and engaged in proxy wars. American troops fought Communist Chinese forces in the Korean War of 1950–53. The House Un-American Activities Committee pursued a series of investigations into suspected leftist subversion, while Senator Joseph McCarthy became the figurehead of anticommunist sentiment. The 1961 Soviet launch of the first manned spaceflight prompted President John F. Kennedy's call for the United States to be first to land "a man on the moon," achieved in 1969. Kennedy also faced a tense nuclear showdown with Soviet forces in Cuba. Meanwhile, the United States experienced sustained economic expansion. A growing civil rights movement, symbolized and led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and James Bevel, used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination. Following Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, expanded a proxy war in Southeast Asia into the unsuccessful Vietnam War. A widespread countercultural movement grew, fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and others led a new wave of feminism that sought political, social, and economic equality for women. As a result of the Watergate scandal, in 1974 Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign, to avoid being impeached on charges including obstruction of justice and abuse of power; he was succeeded by Vice President Gerald Ford. The Jimmy Carter administration of the late 1970s was marked by stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis. The election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 heralded a rightward shift in American politics, reflected in major changes in taxation and spending priorities. His second term in office brought both the Iran-Contra scandal and significant diplomatic progress with the Soviet Union. The subsequent Soviet collapse ended the Cold War. Contemporary era See also: September 11 attacks, Iraq War, and Late-2000s recession The World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001 Under President George H. W. Bush, the United States took a lead role in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War. The longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history—from March 1991 to March 2001—encompassed the Bill Clinton administration and the dot-com bubble. A civil lawsuit and sex scandal led to Clinton's impeachment in 1998, but he remained in office. The 2000 presidential election, one of the closest in American history, was resolved by a U.S. Supreme Court decision—George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, became president. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people. In response, the Bush administration launched a "War on Terrorism". In late 2001, U.S. forces led an invasion of Afghanistan, removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps. Taliban insurgents continue to fight a guerrilla war. In 2002, the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on controversial grounds. Lacking the support of NATO or an explicit UN mandate for military intervention, Bush organized a Coalition of the Willing; coalition forces preemptively invaded Iraq in 2003, removing dictator and former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused severe destruction along much of the Gulf Coast, devastating New Orleans. On November 4, 2008, amid a global economic recession, Barack Obama was elected president. He is the first African American to hold the office.

Comments on the "History" section

That section does not mention the nearly-ten-year presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, a previous version did. I believe that version should be restored.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

History section/Request for comment

I am seeking a request for comment regarding the "History" section of "Philippines" regarding two conflicting versions both claiming "consensus": a [lengthy version] advocated by Lambanog, 23prootie, & Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw and a [short and limited] one advocated by Elockid, JL 09 and JCRB. This discussion is primarily about the length of that section not the content and no discussions about neutrality or verifiability are currently present. I would like to note that here are no restrictions regarding the length of that section as seen in the "History" section of the "United States" article. Also the GA review did not find any controversy regarding the lengthy version of that section. A request for arbitration had been requested that has been rejected.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As an issue separate from my actual request, I am advocating for the lengthy version since it gives more comprehensive information about the history of the country.--124.104.35.184 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Lambanog's comments on [November 27].--124.104.35.184 (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

From the "History" section of the "United States" article.

• I am against that you repost and repost this again. I am posting my comments regarding my analysis on the article. You are making this talk page very long and difficult to access.--JL 09 _^q?c 15:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not debate. Wait for an uninvolved editor to make their comments then make your own, Thank you!--124.104.35.184 (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Click [show] to view list

History Main article: History of the United States Native Americans and European settlers See also: Native Americans in the United States, European colonization of the Americas, and Thirteen Colonies The indigenous peoples of the U.S. mainland, including Alaska Natives, are most commonly believed to have migrated from Asia. They began arriving at least 12,000 and as many as 40,000 years ago. Some, such as the pre-Columbian Mississippian culture, developed advanced agriculture, grand architecture, and state-level societies. After Europeans began settling the Americas, many millions of indigenous Americans died from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox. The Mayflower transported Pilgrims to the New World in 1620, as depicted in William Halsall's The Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor, 1882 In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. On April 2, 1513, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León landed on what he called "La Florida"—the first documented European arrival on what would become the U.S. mainland. Spanish settlements in the region were followed by ones in the present-day southwestern United States that drew thousands through Mexico. French fur traders established outposts of New France around the Great Lakes; France eventually claimed much of the North American interior, down to the Gulf of Mexico. The first successful English settlements were the Virginia Colony in Jamestown in 1607 and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. The 1628 chartering of the Massachusetts Bay Colony resulted in a wave of migration; by 1634, New England had been settled by some 10,000 Puritans. Between the late 1610s and the American Revolution, about 50,000 convicts were shipped to Britain's American colonies. Beginning in 1614, the Dutch settled along the lower Hudson River, including New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island. In 1674, the Dutch ceded their American territory to England; the province of New Netherland was renamed New York. Many new immigrants, especially to the South, were indentured servants—some two-thirds of all Virginia immigrants between 1630 and 1680. By the turn of the century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor. With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established. All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. All legalized the African slave trade. With high birth rates, low death rates, and steady immigration, the colonial population grew rapidly. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty. In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans (popularly known as "American Indians"), who were being displaced, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain; nearly one in five Americans were black slaves. Though subject to British taxation, the American colonials had no representation in the Parliament of Great Britain. Independence and expansion See also: American Revolution, American Revolutionary War, and Manifest Destiny Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull, 1817–18 Tensions between American colonials and the British during the revolutionary period of the 1760s and early 1770s led to the American Revolutionary War, fought from 1775 through 1781. On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress, convening in Philadelphia, established a Continental Army under the command of George Washington. Proclaiming that "all men are created equal" and endowed with "certain unalienable Rights," the Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted largely by Thomas Jefferson, on July 4, 1776. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak confederal government that operated until 1789. After the British defeat by American forces assisted by the French, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States and the states' sovereignty over American territory west to the Mississippi River. A constitutional convention was organized in 1787 by those wishing to establish a strong national government, with powers of taxation. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1788, and the new republic's first Senate, House of Representatives, and president—George Washington—took office in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791. Attitudes toward slavery were shifting; a clause in the Constitution protected the African slave trade only until 1808. The Northern states abolished slavery between 1780 and 1804, leaving the slave states of the South as defenders of the "peculiar institution." The Second Great Awakening, beginning about 1800, made evangelicalism a force behind various social reform movements, including abolitionism. Territorial acquisitions by date Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars and an Indian removal policy that stripped the native peoples of their land. The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory under President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size. The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism. A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845. The concept of Manifest Destiny was popularized during this time. The 1846 Oregon Treaty with Britain led to U.S. control of the present-day American Northwest. The U.S. victory in the Mexican–American War resulted in the 1848 cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest. The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 further spurred western migration. New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans. Over a half-century, up to 40 million American bison, or buffalo, were slaughtered for skins and meat and to ease the railways' spread. The loss of the buffalo, a primary resource for the plains Indians, was an existential blow to many native cultures. Civil War and industrialization See also: American Civil War, Reconstruction era of the United States, and Spanish-American War Battle of Gettysburg, lithograph by Currier & Ives, ca. 1863 Tensions between slave and free states mounted with arguments over the relationship between the state and federal governments, as well as violent conflicts over the spread of slavery into new states. Abraham Lincoln, candidate of the largely antislavery Republican Party, was elected president in 1860. Before he took office, seven slave states declared their secession—which the federal government maintained was illegal—and formed the Confederate States of America. With the Confederate attack upon Fort Sumter, the American Civil War began and four more slave states joined the Confederacy. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation declared slaves in the Confederacy to be free. Following the Union victory in 1865, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution ensured freedom for the nearly four million African Americans who had been slaves, made them citizens, and gave them voting rights. The war and its resolution led to a substantial increase in federal power. Immigrants at Ellis Island, New York Harbor, 1902 After the war, the assassination of Lincoln radicalized Republican Reconstruction policies aimed at reintegrating and rebuilding the Southern states while ensuring the rights of the newly freed slaves. The resolution of the disputed 1876 presidential election by the Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction; Jim Crow laws soon disenfranchised many African Americans. In the North, urbanization and an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe hastened the country's industrialization. The wave of immigration, lasting until 1929, provided labor and transformed American culture. National infrastructure development spurred economic growth. The 1867 Alaska purchase from Russia completed the country's mainland expansion. The Wounded Knee massacre in 1890 was the last major armed conflict of the Indian Wars. In 1893, the indigenous monarchy of the Pacific Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in a coup led by American residents; the United States annexed the archipelago in 1898. Victory in the Spanish–American War the same year demonstrated that the United States was a world power and led to the annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The Philippines gained independence a half-century later; Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. World War I, Great Depression, and World War II See also: American Expeditionary Force, Great Depression in the United States, and Military history of the United States during World War II An abandoned farm in South Dakota during the Dust Bowl, 1936 At the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the United States remained neutral. Most Americans sympathized with the British and French, although many opposed intervention. In 1917, the United States joined the Allies, turning the tide against the Central Powers. After the war, the Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which established the League of Nations. The country pursued a policy of unilateralism, verging on isolationism. In 1920, the women's rights movement won passage of a constitutional amendment granting women's suffrage. The prosperity of the Roaring Twenties ended with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 that triggered the Great Depression. After his election as president in 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with the New Deal, a range of policies increasing government intervention in the economy. The Dust Bowl of the mid-1930s impoverished many farming communities and spurred a new wave of western migration. Soldiers of the U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division landing in Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944 The United States, effectively neutral during World War II's early stages after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939, began supplying materiel to the Allies in March 1941 through the Lend-Lease program. On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to join the Allies against the Axis powers. Participation in the war spurred capital investment and industrial capacity. Among the major combatants, the United States was the only nation to become richer—indeed, far richer—instead of poorer because of the war. Allied conferences at Bretton Woods and Yalta outlined a new system of international organizations that placed the United States and Soviet Union at the center of world affairs. As victory was won in Europe, a 1945 international conference held in San Francisco produced the United Nations Charter, which became active after the war. The United States, having developed the first nuclear weapons, used them on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August. Japan surrendered on September 2, ending the war. Cold War and protest politics See also: Cold War, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), and Vietnam War Martin Luther King, Jr. delivering his "I Have a Dream" speech, 1963 The United States and Soviet Union jockeyed for power after World War II during the Cold War, dominating the military affairs of Europe through NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The United States promoted liberal democracy and capitalism, while the Soviet Union promoted communism and a centrally planned economy. Both supported dictatorships and engaged in proxy wars. American troops fought Communist Chinese forces in the Korean War of 1950–53. The House Un-American Activities Committee pursued a series of investigations into suspected leftist subversion, while Senator Joseph McCarthy became the figurehead of anticommunist sentiment. The 1961 Soviet launch of the first manned spaceflight prompted President John F. Kennedy's call for the United States to be first to land "a man on the moon," achieved in 1969. Kennedy also faced a tense nuclear showdown with Soviet forces in Cuba. Meanwhile, the United States experienced sustained economic expansion. A growing civil rights movement, symbolized and led by African Americans such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., and James Bevel, used nonviolence to confront segregation and discrimination. Following Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon, expanded a proxy war in Southeast Asia into the unsuccessful Vietnam War. A widespread countercultural movement grew, fueled by opposition to the war, black nationalism, and the sexual revolution. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and others led a new wave of feminism that sought political, social, and economic equality for women. As a result of the Watergate scandal, in 1974 Nixon became the first U.S. president to resign, to avoid being impeached on charges including obstruction of justice and abuse of power; he was succeeded by Vice President Gerald Ford. The Jimmy Carter administration of the late 1970s was marked by stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis. The election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980 heralded a rightward shift in American politics, reflected in major changes in taxation and spending priorities. His second term in office brought both the Iran-Contra scandal and significant diplomatic progress with the Soviet Union. The subsequent Soviet collapse ended the Cold War. Contemporary era See also: September 11 attacks, Iraq War, and Late-2000s recession The World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001 Under President George H. W. Bush, the United States took a lead role in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War. The longest economic expansion in modern U.S. history—from March 1991 to March 2001—encompassed the Bill Clinton administration and the dot-com bubble. A civil lawsuit and sex scandal led to Clinton's impeachment in 1998, but he remained in office. The 2000 presidential election, one of the closest in American history, was resolved by a U.S. Supreme Court decision—George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush, became president. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon near Washington, D.C., killing nearly three thousand people. In response, the Bush administration launched a "War on Terrorism". In late 2001, U.S. forces led an invasion of Afghanistan, removing the Taliban government and al-Qaeda training camps. Taliban insurgents continue to fight a guerrilla war. In 2002, the Bush administration began to press for regime change in Iraq on controversial grounds. Lacking the support of NATO or an explicit UN mandate for military intervention, Bush organized a Coalition of the Willing; coalition forces preemptively invaded Iraq in 2003, removing dictator and former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused severe destruction along much of the Gulf Coast, devastating New Orleans. On November 4, 2008, amid a global economic recession, Barack Obama was elected president. He is the first African American to hold the office.