Jump to content

Talk:Armed Forces of the Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I'm moving an external link here because trying save the article with this link in it causes the save to be aborted with a "Blacklisted hyperlink" message, objecting to a hyperlink to the z3.invisionfree.com site. -- Boracay Bill 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • [httpremove this to restore the link://z3.invisionfree.com/Defense_Philippines/index.php Philippines Defense Forces Forum]

Conflicts re Philippine Declatation of Independence

[edit]

Info presented in the history section of this article is in conflict with info presented in Philippine Declaration of Independence. In this edit, I attempted to resolve some of the conflicts. In this edit, User:Estarapapax reversed my changes without explanation. In order to bring these two articles into agreement, I have just reinserted my changes. If there is disagreement about this, I ask that discussion take place here before the changes are again reversed. I ask that the Philippine Declaration of Independence] be read, that the text of the June 12, 1898 declaration itself (requoted in that article) be read, and that particular attention be paid to (1) the name of the person who read out the declaration, (2) whether the declaration referred to Aguinaldo as "President" or "Dictator", (3) at what time and by what means Aguinaldo did become President. I note that the First Philippine Republic article says, "Independence was declared on June 12, 1898 and the dictatorial government then in place was replaced by a revolutionary government headed by Emilio Aguinaldo as president on June 23, 1898.", and I have mentioned that in my latest changes. (I'm not an expert on the History of the Philippines, but Wikipedia articles, especially articles this closely related, should not contradict one another. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces of the Philippines Structure

[edit]

The inclusion of the Philippine Coast Guard and Philippine Marines on the list of branches of the AFP is incorrect. There are only three branches of the AFP namely Army, Navy, and Air Force. The coast guard belongs to the Department of Transportation. Although the Marines is part of the AFP it is under the Navy. It is incorrect to list it as part of the three branches of the AFP doing so would mean a separate service that of the Navy.


December 2015, removed the Phil Marine Corps logo. Either the people who continually edits this page inserting, PMC on the list of AFP Services, are not aware of the AFP or just simply ignorant of the fact that there are only 3 armed services not four. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthguardian2015 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]



To those editing and writing Philippine Marine Corps on the list of AFP services please check your information and hold back on your bias. I have edited the following due to inconsistencies and inaccuracies on the topic. Individual bias is not helping the accuracy of information regarding the AFP.


Removed, again, the Phil Marine Corps under the Three Service Branch of AFP. To those editing and putting information here, kindly note that this is suppose to be encyclopedic and not a blog or a propaganda article. The title alone should be obvious and conclusive that there only three branches of the AFP. putting PMC on the list makes it four not three. So to be blatant about this PMC is not under AFP service branch but under the Phil. Navy together with Phil. Fleet. If you will PMC under this heading this will be inaccurate.

PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING - Don't use Wikipedia as a propaganda machine, Philppine Marine Corps is not a branch of the AFP but a service command under the Phil. Navy. Doing so is misleading and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.177.99 (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect placing on AFP branch of service

[edit]

The Philippine Marine Corps is a command within the Navy and not a branch of service of the AFP. The Wikipedia is encyclopedic this is not for propaganda. The inclusion of the PMC is misleading and confusing. It seem to show that there's are four branches of the AFP instead of three. Please refrain editing this article for propaganda. If we are to put PMC on the list then for consistency of this topic each service must include a list of its command for example under Philippine Navy is Philippine Fleet and Philippine Marine Corps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.29.20 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING - Don't use Wikipedia as a propaganda machine, Philppine Marine Corps is not a branch of the AFP but a service command under the Phil. Navy. Doing so is misleading and inaccurate.


Organization and branches

[edit]

The 1987 Philippine Constitution placed the AFP under the control of a civilian, the President of the Philippines, who acts as its Commander-in-Chief. All of its branches are part of the Department of National Defense, which is headed by the Secretary of National Defense.

The AFP has three major branches:

  • Philippine Army (PA) – Hukbong Katihan ng Pilipinas
  • Philippine Navy (PN) – Hukbong Dagat ng Pilipinas
    • Philippine Marine Corps (PMC) - Hukbong Kawal Pandagat ng Pilipinas - remove its say three branches why are you listing PMC here. If you do then list Phil Fleet, Scout Ranger, 5th Figther Wing etc.
  • Philippine Air Force (PAF) – Hukbong Himpapawid ng Pilipinas

These three major branches are unified under a Chief of Staff who normally holds the rank of General/Admiral. He is assisted by a Vice Chief of Staff, normally holding the rank of Lieutenant General/Vice Admiral. Each of the three major branches are headed by an officer with the following titles: Commanding General of the Philippine Army (Lieutenant General), Flag Officer in Command of the Philippine Navy (Vice Admiral), Commandant of the Philippine Marine Corps (Major General), and Commanding General of the Philippine Air Force (Lieutenant General). - Phil Marine Corps remove due to again to inconsistencies. We are discussing service branches of AFP and to its major commands of the service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.146.98 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5 star General and Admiral

[edit]

The US currently does not have a 5 star general. The article below is misleading

"Five-star. Unlike in the US military, AFP has no five-star general generally because AFP cannot afford to make the Corps and Field divisions within AFP. The largest unit in AFP is Division. US has Corps and Field as the largest units which are double and quadraple the size of Division respectively. By comparison, US Army and US Air Force has chiefs which are five-stars (Official rank names are General of the Army and General of the Air Force) while PA and PAF have chiefs which are three-stars."

See reference below

[| Fleet Admiral] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul thomas 2007 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention what order confers honorary 5-star rank to the Philippine President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.25.114 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The current AFP should it be headed by a Navy Admiral will be promoted to full Admiral or a 4 star Admiral. The article is incorrect to state that a vice admiral will promoted to 4 star General —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul thomas 2007 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up (Removal of ranks and special forces etc)

[edit]

I removed the section on ranks temporarily, not sure if we should have it here or move it to the individual services? I seem to recall an official site (mil.ph) where they had the ranks and insignias listed plus the names of the ranks in Filipino, but I can't seem to find it anymore. The Philippine Army's own site has ranks and insignia for both officers and enlisted. Oddly enough, they list a Sergeant Major as an Officer though.

Special Forces section was removed because it's redundant since much of the info's already in the articles of the individual branches. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions For A Section

[edit]

Would having a section dedicated to "Recent Activity" help strengthen the relevancy of this article? Perhaps an entry on Islamic insurgency in the Philippines and their involvement? --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time-relative terms such as recent are a problem. When written, they are relative to the the time of authorship. When read at a later time, they are relative to the time of reading. Perhaps a section on "Activity" with a series of dated subsections organized oldest-first. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could actually roll this into the History section. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Would be good to have a section on the militiries human rights abuces against civilians throughout the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.54.140 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFP one of the strongest militaries in Asia?

[edit]

The claim that the AFP is "one of the strongest militaries in Asia from the 1950s through the 1970s" is not supported by the linked reference. And even if the linked references does support the claim, it is not a good reference since it is the AFP site itself. --124.106.231.69 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Ranks (Philippines)

[edit]

Ranks of officers in Philippine Military are usually pronounce in Filipino (particulary in Tagalog, the major language)in which they adapt it from U.S. Military. The following officer ranks are as follows: 

Pangalawang Tenyente (Second Lieutenant)
Unang Tenyente (First Lieutenant)
Kapitan (Captain)
Medyor (Major)
Tenyente Koronel (Lieutenant Colonel)
Koronel (Colonel)
Brigadyer Heneral (Brigadier General)
Medyor Heneral (Major General)
Tenyente Heneral (Lieutenant General)
Heneral (General)

These ranks are officially applied in Philippine Army, Air force and Marine Corps in which these pronounciations are actually adaptation from Spanish and English language except, for the words "pangalawang" and "unang" which came from original tagalog pronounciation.

In Philippine Navy however, to pronounce the officer ranks in Filipino, is just the same in English (particularly in the U.S.and British Royal Navy) although, there are some that can be translated and pronounce officially in Filipino which are italized in parenthesis. The ranks are as follows: 

Ensign
Lieutenant Junior Grade (Tenyente na Mabababang Baitang)
Lieutanant or Lieutanant Senior Grade (Tenyente na Nakatataas na Baitang) 
Lieutenant Commander (Tenyente Kumander)
Commander (Kumander)
Captain (Kapitan)
Commodore
Rear Admiral
Vice Admiral(Bise Admiral)
Admiral


The alternative style of address for the ranks of Lieutanant Junior Grade and Lieutanant Senior Grade in Filipino is simply Tenyente because, it is too redundant if you address them fully in their Filipino rank equivalent. It is also the same as Second and First Lieutenants in the Army, Air force and Marine Corps.

The ranks of enlisted personnel in Filipino is just the same as its U.S. counterpart but, they never use "Specialist","Sergeant First Class", "First Sergeant"(for Army and Air Force except Marine Corps),"Command Sergeant Major","Lance Corporal","Gunnery Sergeant" "Master Gunnery Sergeant" in Philippine Army and Marine Corps. It is simply they start to address their ranks from Private Second Class up to Sergeant Major. In Philippine Air Force, they also use Airman Second Class up to Chief Master Sergeant (same as its U.S. counterpart). In Philippine Navy, they also use enlisted ranks coming from U.S. Navy with its specialization like "Master Chief and Boatswain's Mate Juan Dela Cruz, PN" (Philippine Navy).

The alternative style to address the non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel in Filipino are: From Private Second Class up to Private First Class it is "pribeyt" or "mga pribeyt" for a group of privates that is adaptive in English. "Kabo" for corporal adaptive from the word "cabo" in Spanish (except air force they use airman or airmen and airwoman or airwomen from Airman Second Class up to Senior Airman)."Sarhento" for sergeants in Army, Air force and Marine Corps also adpative from the word "sargento" in Spanish . In Navy, the original Filipino alternative style for Seaman or Seawoman Apprentice up to Seaman or Seawoman First Class is "Mandaragat" or "Mga Mandaragat" for a group seamen and seawomen. For petty ffficers, they call it P.O.'s and "tsip" from chief (petty) officers up to Master Chief (Petty) officers.

They are no warrant officers in between officer ranks and enlisted ranks simply they never use it. For insignias of officers and enlisted personnel you can go on these websites: www.army.mil.ph, www.navy.mil.ph, and www.paf.mil.ph. (You can now post the ranks in the main article of Armed Forces of the Philippines) ---- Dast 138

Manpower

[edit]

Isn't this Manpower thing classified...?You are exposing Philippine military strength... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.27.78 (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's widely published internationally. The Philippine military also places a lot of information about its organisation online. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.afp.mil.ph/0/history.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MER-C 06:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is South Korea a foreign supplier of AFP?

[edit]

SoKor has supplied RP with Daewoo K3's and the Chamsuri class patrol vessel. Was th at enough to be in the list? Sir Jazer 13 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement Rank in The Philippines

[edit]

Is it correct that on normal retirement and officer in the Philippine Army retires one rank up. EG a Captain ecomes a retired Major and a Major becomes a Lt Col? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.53 (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


-- Yes sir. It is correct. --27.108.12.78 (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sirs, just to add to this, (yes) an officer or enlisted personnel is moved 1 rank up if he/she retires from the service. However it is the pay in reference to the pension that they will receive that goes up and not the actual rank. To cite an example, a Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) that retires will indeed receive the corresponding pay for a full-Colonel as pension but he/she will not necessarily go up the ranks as a full-Colonel (O-6). Hope this clarifies the discussion. Thanks :) Lieutenantpdg (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rediculous statement in text

[edit]

The article currently states the that Filipino military is one of the most advanced in the region. This is a farcical statement, their navy lacks any craft capable of launching missles and their airforce lacks any fighter capability at all. Malaysia, Indonesia, China, Taiwan, and Vietnam all have more powerful and advanced militaries. Half of the inventory of the filipino navy is 1940's vintage equipment. Even Brunei's navy is more powerful than that of the filipines. Unless someone can put a citation where i placed the tag im going to remove the statement from the article.XavierGreen (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FWIW, you really need to double check again the full text of your edit within that sentence, it says: "At the height of the Cold War, the Philippines was one of the most well-equipped militaries in Asia, because of a tight diplomatic-relationship with the United States in battling the threat of Communism." Nowhere did it says now, or in the current state. As a neutral third party, wouldn't you agree too? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At no point during the cold war was the phillipine military stronger or better equipped than that of China, Indonesia, Japan, or Taiwan. Malaysia and Vietnam have only become more powerful in terms of naval stregnth from the late 1970's onward. Now its army may have been one of the best equipped at the time, but its airforce and navy have always been in shambles and much much weaker than most of its neighbors. Regardless the paragraph still needs a citation anyway to back up such a statement.XavierGreen (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Revolutionary Army, General Artemio Ricarte

[edit]

The AFP can not claim lineage either directly or implied to the Philippine Revolutionary Army (PRA) because they were belligerents with the Philippine Constabulary which is the "Forefather" of the AFP. The AFP can only claim lineage if they were formed by the government of the First Philippine Republic.

General Artemio Ricarte can not be the "Father of the Philippine Army" in as much as he was never with the Philippine Constabulary. He never took an oath of Allegiance with the United States. The real "Founding Father" of the Philippine Army is General Douglas MacArthur.

The questionable content should be removed as it fails in the following: 1) Verifiability; 2) No Original Research; 3) Cite sources from a third-party reputable resource; and, 4) No historical documentation to support claims lineage to the PRA and General Ricarte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMilitaryExpert (talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to be part of the Philippine Revolutionary Army

[edit]

I think, for the moment, claims of being part of and descendant of the Philippine Revolutionary Army, until reliably sourced by a third party, should be entirely removed (sooner rather than later). These can be added later if such a third party source exists, or the claim can be removed if such sources are not forthcoming, as there are no emergencies in Wikipedia.--Wiki Exterminator (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the significant amount of content seen in this edit, I think.
As far as I can tell, the removed content does not assert that the AFP are part of or are descended from the PRA. In fact, I think the removed material makes it pretty clear that the PRA became defunct prior to the establishment of the AFP. There are sources out there, however, which claim explicitly or implicitly that the AFP is descended from the PRA are and/or which credit the Armed Forces of the Philippines as an organization with making that claim or with having made that claim. Examples:
  • XylumTech. The Philippine Government. PediaPress. p. 92.
  • Ricardo Trota Jose (1992). The Philippine Army, 1935-1942. Ateneo University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-971-550-081-4.
  • Cesar P. Pobre (2000). History of the Armed Forces of the Filipino People. New Day Publishers. p. 27. ISBN 978-971-10-1041-6.
  • etc.
I would expect that the removal of this material would lead to insertion of material growing out of info in sources such as these which assert baldly that the AFP is descended from the PRA -- perhaps supported by citation such sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Armed Forces of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Constabulary c. 1938-39

[edit]

This edit, which asks for clarification of an assertion that the PC returned ("from where?", the edit asks) in 1938 as a branch of the Philippine Army, caught my eye. I happen to have a copy of The Philippine Army, 1935-1942, Ateneo University Press, 1992, ISBN 978-971-550-081-4, and on page 118 in chapter 6, "Cracks in the Plan", speaking of other events which it dates in 1939, goes on to say, "The separation of the PC from the Army was further formalized when the constabulary was officially placed under the Department of the Interior on 2 February. A week later, MacArthur sought to enlarge it from its authorized strength of 350 officers and 4,500 enlisted men to 450 officers and 7,000 men. This would mean an additional cost of 4,260,420 pesos, the bulk of which would still come from the army budget. That is footnoted to a note on page 246 which reads, "6. The Philippine Army (PA) budget for calendar year 1939 was 16,454,500 pesos. The Government shifted to a fiscal year, however, and EO 190 allotted funds for the first half of 1939; the army was budgeted 10,039,460 pesos, of which 2,310,201 pesos was for the Philippine Constabulary (PC). The budget for 1939-1940 (Commonwealth Act (CA) 440) appropriated 16,449,100 pesos to the army, but 3,250,000 pesos was for the PC. The net money available to the PA was, therefore 3,199,100 pesos. The PC, in addition, got an additional appropriation of 1,010,420 pesos in separate legislation." (any typos in there are mine)

I'm not sure whether that clears or muddies the waters. I'll try to find time to look through that book for some more info about the organizational relationship between the PA and the PC. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(added) Looking back at chapter 5 ("Growth and Development") in that book, I see the following on page 103: "[...] Cracks in the original plan were discovered, necessitating the separation of the PC division from the army. Misunderstandings led several Philippine Scouts officers to walk out of the army and return to their Scouts units." I don't immediately see any additional detail about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (added) Digging around a bit, I found[reply]

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Filipino Name: Sandatahang Lakas ng Pilipinas

[edit]

The correct Filipino name of the AFP is Sandatahang Lakas ng Pilipinas, not "Hukbong Sandatahan ng Pilipinas".

"Hukbo" is used in the Filipino names of the AFP's service branches: "Hukbong Himpapawid ng Pilipinas" (Philippine Air Force); "Hukbong Katihan ng Pilipinas" (Philippine Army); "Hukbong Dagat ng Pilipinas" (Philippine Navy); and "Hukbong Kawal Pandagat ng Pilipinas" (Philippine Marine Corps), which is under the Philippine Navy.

EverythingCountsInLargeAmounts (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Armed Forces of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Armed Forces of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Troop levels

[edit]

Recently, there has been a bit of an edit war going on about infobox figures for troop levels. I broke into that with this edit to clarify that the version of the figures which agreed with the cited source were from 2007 (I replaced the previously cited undated source with a source dated in 2007 which gives the same figures -- please read WP:DATED). I see that the lead paragraph seems to be a bit of a mess regarding troop levels; at one point, it says, "In 2013 the IISS listed reserves as 40,000 Army, 30,000 Navy and Marine Corps, and 25,000 Air Force.", citing a source in support which is dated with the year 2011 (not 2013 or 2014) and which is tagged {{citation not found}}. It appears to me that some straightening out is needed. I may help out with this as I have time, but I don't know much about this topical area and have few refernces available to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Armed Forces of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Security Sector Reform section

[edit]

I must protest. This edit [1] by an anonymous editor deleted a section on Security sector governance and reform in the Philippines, with the claim that it is equivalent to modernization. It is a broader topic and modernization is only a one part of it. Aside from capacity building (i.e. modernization), there is professionalization, and democratization. I would like to restore the section, but I am informing the community of my intentions first.- MistahPeemayer (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section seems to have been returned, and now given the title "Reform and modernization." Maybe this fits the article topic a bit better. Thank you. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to the renaming

[edit]

This article should've not been renamed, the organization is commonly known as the "Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)" – Rick (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinNov3: I moved back the page because of good-faith objection by Rickt11 above. If you wish to pursue renaming, please start a renaming discussion according to the instructions at WP:RM. Thank you. No such user (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is the chorus of military Philippines

[edit]

i dont know the name of chorus of military 49.151.230.162 (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armed_Forces_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1205337605"