Jump to content

Talk:People Power Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:1986 EDSA Revolution)


EDSA acronym

[edit]

What does EDSA stand for? What is it?

Epifanio De Los Santos Avenue. Added to the article. --seav 01:02, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

POV statement?

[edit]

"We Americans like to think we taught the Filipinos democracy well, tonight they are teaching the world" I don't think that's a neutral statement.210.5.88.22 14:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, the statement might not be neutral. But in the article, that statement is attributed to Bob Simon at CBS. So it's still NPOV. --seav 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Estrada Declared the "State of Rebellion"?

[edit]

I remember it was Gloria during EDSA III. 70.239.151.182 09:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as EDSA III.

Non-English radio broadcast transcript

[edit]

Considering this is the English Wikipedia, can someone please translate the Tagalog radio transcript in this article? Thank you. Moncrief 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone pleas edit the entire article. It needs some attention from an editor who speaks English, rather than Philippine English.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takeover of Channel 4/DWGT-TV/NBN4

[edit]

Channel 4 was put back online, shortly after noon, with a voice declaring, "This is Channel 4. Serving the people again."

I seem to remember actual words were actually "Channel 4 is back on the air again to serve the people"

Also how long was the station off for ? News reports (here in the UK) at the time seemed to suggest it was only for a few seconds. The article appears to suggest it was longer than this.

Most of whom were communist

[edit]

Ca someone give me a source to this? I don't think it was only the left-leaning civilians who got angry about the assasination.

I agree that the term left-leaning leaves a lot of room for interpretation, to the point that it often brings sentences the verge of not being NPOV. Can someone suggest a more neutral term, or a standard way of dealing with this? At the very least this needs to be addressed because the political alignments the below-25 (post-cory) generation of Filipinos grew up with are vastly different, and I believe the term "left leaning" would confuse them. Heck, it confuses ME. :-D I was only seven when EDSA happened. The only reason I was especially aware at the time is that my Dad was still in the AFP at the time. 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternativity (talk • contribs)

one of the BEST SENATOR in Philippine politics

[edit]

I edited the page becouse this statement is certainly not NPOV and its debatable at best.

A whole paragraph about Wency L. Reyes and his friends and their spouses, but why are they important? How much influence did he have? That paragraph needs some clarification.

Who is Wency L. Reyes and why is he important?

[edit]

A whole paragraph about Wency L. Reyes and his friends and their spouses, but why are they important? How much influence did he have? That paragraph needs clarification. Dcheng 21:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before Cardinal Sin, Butz Aquino, there was Wency Reyes. He was the first to call for a million people in the historical EDSA 1986 People Power. It is important to note the live message of Wency Reyes on February 22, 1986 on Radio Veritas broadcast (approximately 7PM) was that of: Call for 1 million people and moral support. Cardinal Sin, who broadcasted at approximately 9PM of the same day, gave the message of: Pray together, support Gen. Ramos and Enrile at Camp Aguinaldo to show solidarity, please come and help them with your presence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.133.15 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV statement

[edit]

"polarized beyond repair" is a pov statement. This should be corrected. Lafem 08:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Glorious Revolution

[edit]

Wasn't there a non-violent revolution in England in 1688? Biboy Guttierrez (203.160.188.196 14:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Name of article

[edit]

I would sure appreciate it if somebody would explain why this article is not named People Power Revolution (or perhaps Philippines People Power Revolution). How and when did it (the event) acquire the name "EDSA Revolution"? I followed events very closely at the time, and I've never seen that term anywhere before I found this article. Please give as much info as possible to support use of this name for the article. Thanks! Cgingold 22:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why it had that name too. Perhaps, since we were the first to coin the term "People Power", we might as well call it "People Power Revolution." I'll probably move the page in a few hours, so that anyone may want to add any comments if they feel. Or, alternately, we might make a disambig for People Power and then link it the the Revolution. ætərnal ðrAعon 03:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I contributed the bulk of the material (>80%) in the article, I guess my input is valuable. Hehe. I've always referred to it as "EDSA Revolution." Using the Google test turns up:
  • ["edsa revolution"] - ~47,000 results
  • ["people power revolution"] - ~50,000 results
  • ["edsa revolution" marcos aquino] - ~14,000 results
  • ["people power revolution" marcos aquino] - ~17,000 results
The results show that both are equally valid names for the event, with "people power" having a slight upper hand. I don't particularly care which of the two is used, so I've no problem with the proposed rename. --seav 06:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did a Google Book Search, which should give more scholarly results, and the following came up:
  • ["edsa revolution" philippines] - ~270 results
  • ["people power revolution" philippines] - ~530 results
Since the difference is about a factor of two in the "scholarly" domain, I guess PPR is the way to go! seav 06:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the question of Cgingold regarding the origin of the term "EDSA Revolution", the google results show that people do call it by that name, and quite often. As for when and how it came up, I doubt that anyone did a study about it. My speculation is that the "people power" was how the event was referred to within the first few years after the event and the "EDSA" monicker came up when the "people power" notion became diluted with other peaceful revolutions that followed elsewhere in the world. Now, it seems that both terms are used extensively, moreso when "EDSA II" and "EDSA Tres" occurred. --seav 06:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess I'll move it to "EDSA Revolution" or "People Power Revolution". I've put it on WP:RM. If that's OK with everyone else. Thanks for that seav. ætərnal ðrAعon 11:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. It'll be beneficial to read the discussion at Talk:EDSA III#EDSA III? so that the other articles will be moved too. --Howard the Duck 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Other articles"? They're different, are they? The discussion on Howard's aforementioned talk page also did a google search to test the "popularity of terms", however that was about EDSA II. While having an "EDSA II" page will have people looking for an "EDSA Part I", it's about what people generally call it. We could rename "EDSA II" as "Estrada Impeechment" or something along those lines to eliminate ambiguity. Most people outside the Philippines haven't even heard of the name "EDSA", and refer to it as "People Power", so you have to think of it from the perspective of someone who is looking for it. Anyways, I was going to move it, but for now, Howard, I'm still "waiting"... Thanks anyway ætərnal ðrAعon 08:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the consensus there was to move 1986 EDSA Revolution to People Power Revolution. EDSA Revolution of 2001 to EDSA Dos and leave ESDA Tres where it is, while leaving EDSA Revolution as a dab (eventually a discussion of what the 3 EDSAs were for). --Howard the Duck 08:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, that's what I said - to move it to People Power Revolution. That's what I said at WP:RM. ætərnal ðrAعon 08:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I'd also want the other articles to be included in the move. --Howard the Duck 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Want me to put EDSA 2001 on WP:RM too? ætərnal ðrAعon 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved 1986 EDSA Revolution to People Power Revolution, given no objections here and consensus at Talk:EDSA III.

I'm not sure about EDSA Revolution of 2001 and EDSA III, though, given the discussion at Talk:EDSA III. I'll hold off on that for now, unless someone just wants to list it at WP:RM. -- RG2 10:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll create a map

[edit]

I'll volunteer to create a map of the places of the events. Hopefully I can finish it by November end. --seav 08:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Template for EDSA and the revolutions?

[edit]

I just thought that it might be a good idea since EDSA is not just a major road but a significant place in modern Philippine history.

{{EDSA}}

Tell me what you think guys. Feel free to add any other places/events which you think might be significant. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... could we remove the shopping malls? I think they aren't historic.--Lenticel (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I think in this case it's not a question of whether it's historical or not, but whether it's notable or not. And I think the heading 'locations' should be changed. It's a bit too vague. I believe SM North and SM Mall of Asia do belong on the list because they are major landmarks, although now that TriNoMa has joined SM North, doesn't that area have its own non-mall-based name yet, a-la araneta center or ayala center? I've added the Araneta Center and EDSA Shrine. I'm debating as to whether or not Guadalupe bridge also deserves a mention. BTW, come to think of it, discussion of this box probably properly belongs in Talk:Epifanio de los Santos Avenue rather than here. Alternativity 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

This article isn't very good. I'd love to help get this to at least Good Article status (Featured Article status is a very lofty goal) but I have zero references at my disposal. Can anyone point me towards some web-based references? Thanks. TheCoffee 15:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most of the very good references are in books. I have a book here at home and I already cited the paragraphs I sourced from the book. For you guys, maybe we can use Google Scholar and Google Book Search. --seav 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Anyway, since you'll be citing your books, you'll probably want to get the citations specific enough to the page number. I notice that's what most recently featured articles do, and that's what I did with History of the Philippines. TheCoffee 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I plan to do that. As soon as I find that book. Hehehe. --seav 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been listening to this podcast series: http://pcij.org/edsa20/edsa20-20.html They are interviews with people who were there... you might find it useful for reference... I suppose we could quote people directly from podcasts... --Nino Gonzales 15:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help do online and off line book sourcing. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, can we divvy up the podcasts and pick out the relevant facts/ commentary/ quotations from this to be added to the article, especially the podcasts with Cory Aquino, Enrile, Imelda, Jim Paredes, Misuari, Honasan, Ramos, and Rene Saguisag. --seav (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we really need offline sources on this one. Though People power is an important event, there is a lack of good online sources out there.--Lenticel (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually online book sources, but limited.hehe Anyway, it helps. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's for now guys. I may be visiting Wiki but not so often because I have things to do in school and will probably make me busy. At least, we have amassed 20 references, (please check). Thank you. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 12:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found an online essay on the Revolution done here if it helps. Just another thing, most of ther online hits on Google for the revolution contain quotations - do you think they might be useful? ætərnal ðrAعon 08:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis/Impact/Precedent section

[edit]

Anyone care to tackle this? --seav (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A subtopic on impact [to the rest of the world], backed up by international sources, would be fine. An analysis would be...What??? Is this an in-depth study, a higher research, or [just] an encyclopedia article/entry? Also an analysis would be prone to POV and even original research. --Weekeejames 18:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weekee got the point. Impact is fine since we can gather references out there (note: Sources outside Phil). Also, the analysis thing could lead to POVs but we can make it through concrete references. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An analysis is fine as long as it is sourced from reputable historians/political scientists. Film articles have commentary/reviews/reactions sections. An event like this can have analysis/commentary as well. --seav 03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that will lessen our chances of pushing this article to FA status. Commentaries, really, are prone to POVs even if they are sourced from credible sources. Although we can present a "two-sides of the coin" (a failure and a success, for example) commentaries/analysis from credible sources. We have to present the article objectively as much as possible. Well, good luck. --Weekeejames 05:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an FA is also supposed to be comprehensive and tackles practically every aspect of te topic. A political event like this needs some political discourse, otherwise it would just be a news-like article. Don't worry, it's doable. --seav 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got your point. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found an interesting article on the aftermath of the People Power Revolution Anderson, H. Liu, M. Vokey, R. (1986, June 9) Aquino's 100 DaysInternational, pg 35. I believe that the article addresses more of what happened during the beginning of the next government and how they began to address certain problems and how they were to "clean up" after the previous regime. It discusses the flaws of Aquino's plan such as attempting to adopt an American form of government and the problems of it. The article also discusses the political uncertainty of the Philippines. This should help because I feel like the wiki article is lacking on information following the aftermath of the People Power Revolution Msiao (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Impact of People Power Revolution

[edit]

Can you guys add a section about this? Thanks--Lenticel (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can add it in, but we should produce sources first. I think EDSA I served as a catalyst for similar revolutions, if I'm correct. --Sky Harbor 00:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, pinauso natin ang people power. You could add a the section as a stub and tag it with an expand template. We could then graft in some sources once they are available--Lenticel (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sky, you still in school right? maybe you could find offline sources.--Lenticel (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, our People Power Revolution became a model/pattern of some non-violent revolutions in Eastern Europe during the downfall of communism in their part of the world. However, this section has to be carefully backed up by references from credible international historians, academicians, political scientists and other sources who are non-Filipinos. Otherwise, it will just be a claim... I'm trying to help on some clean-ups and polishing on the article. The people power revolution happened when I was in high school and although I wasn't in Metro Manila when it happened, like other Filipinos, we were also part of it all in spirit. We were glued to the tv and radio during those miracle hours. --Weekeejames 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to when I have the time. I don't usually visit the library nowadays. --Sky Harbor 11:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

For what are those images for? --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we need additional images right? How bout this banner? Ninoy Aquino Bannder. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The images are still of significant people, however I don't see the point in them being in a gallery. Maybe, they should be spaced around the article. ætərnal ðrAعon 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. Lemme fix it. --Weekeejames 02:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ætərnal ðrAعon 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosary Revolution

[edit]

I would like to take it out. My reason is: notability and brevity. I believe the term "rosary revolution" is colloquial in the sense that only christian or catholic nations can relate to it. One can even say, informally, that it was a prayer revolution. But the Edsa Revolution was indeed a truly political revolution with a non-violent characteristic and a religious undertone. Also, it is really more commonly known as the Edsa Revolution, the People Power Revolution, or the 1986 Philippine Revolution and less commonly as the "Rosary Revolution" and such... --Weekeejames 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They also called it as February Revolution. Source:Militant Labor in the Philippines —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritandBeyonce (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also dubbed as Yellow Revolution. Source:Media and Politics in Pacific Asia --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rallies and protests outside Metro Manila

[edit]

Does anyone have any sources for this? While the events were concentrated around EDSA, I think other urban centers in the country staged their own demonstrations. --seav 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember any significant rallies and protests outside Manila during that time. If anyone has access to the archives of the newspaper Malaya, you should be able to find some information on that, if there were any. If there were rallies and protests outside Metro Manila, I think those were not significant, not even relevant to the Edsa Revolution. The only relevant event (though not really significant) that I can remember that happened outside Manila is when Cory went to Cebu and stayed at the Carmelites convent for reflection, prayer and shelter from harm after the uprising began. But anyway, try getting access to the Malaya newspaper archives for that period. --Weekeejames 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there weren't any, at least none that were significant enough to feature in this article anyway. Everything organised was held in Manila for the sake that it was the capital and seat of government. ætərnal ðrAعon 08:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing by 24.184.192.130

[edit]

He vandalized the article almost a year ago and some of his edits still remained (like the "millions" of Marcos loyalists that attended Marcos' inauguration). His contributions, including the ones to the 1986 election, need to be reexamined. (I can't do it right now. :-p) --seav 10:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 9 edits of User:Eternal dragon

[edit]

I think his recent edits especially on the lead paragraph have made the article more messy. In my past revisions, I attempted to clarify the event as a three-day running event and not four (particularly, the street demonstrations at EDSA) which were part of day 1 until day 4. That was the most significant thing that ever happened to the People Power Revolution. That is why, it is also called the "EDSA Revolution". If Cardinal Sin didn't ask the people to go out in the streets, there would be no EDSA Revolution. When Cardinal Sin called out on the people to go to EDSA and support Ramos and Enrile at 9 PM on day 1, that was the starting point of the Edsa Revolution. I also do not believe that it was a "series" as it is now rewritten. There were no other EDSA Revolutions prior to the 1996 revolution, so it was not certainly a "series". If this is a series, then EDSA 2 and EDSA 3 is now part of that series, but we are talking about EDSA 1 here. The sentence "The majority of the demonstrations took place of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, known more commonly by its acronym EDSA, and involved over 200,000 Filipino civilians as well as several political and military figures" is such an understatement if only to put the minimum number of people at 200,000. The sentence "The protests, fueled by a resistance and opposition of years of corrupt governance by Marcos, occurred from 22 February to 25 in 1986, when Marcos fled Malacañang Palace to the United States and conceeded[4] to Corazon Aquino as President of the Philippines.[5]" has now gone to POV, and no. 4 and 5 references have nothing to do with the phrase "fueled by a resistance and opposition of years of corrupt governance by Marcos". Also, writing style looked better prior to these new revisions (but that's just my opinion). I reckon the best presentation would be deductive style, but we can't put everything in the lead while sacrificing the most particular and significant aspects of the events. For example, the downfall of Marcos was more significant than the installation of Cory. Hence, the installation of Cory can be presented below in further paragraphs. I dunno, maybe it's just me. I think the lead paragraph didn't need a major facelift. I think what needs to be overhauled starts from the Events of the Revolution all the way down to Aftermath (and a part of the Marcos Regime subsection) and not the lead paragraph. If we keep doing this, we'll never finish the article in good shape. Haayyy. Also, the photos of Enrile and Sin should be brought back. Those two men are two of the key players of the EDSA Revolution. Their photos deserve to be in the article more than those photos of newspapers headlines. --Weekeejames (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pssst... Fix it by yourself. Don't divulge it in the public—we might hurt somebody, who, outside the periphery of our knowledge, was trying to improve the article. Assume good faith Weekee and good job to the recent improvements of the article; fixing the summary, adding source; etc. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! My apologies; there was no pun intended, not even assuming it wasnt done in good faith. I think that's what these discussions or talk pages are for rather than engaging in editing wars. Anyway, I get easily annoyed (duh) by major facelifts especially at the leading paragraphs. Though it wasn't perfect, I still believe it didn't need a major facelift. Well anyway, good luck on this article. There's nothing permanent in Wikipedia, anyway. --Weekeejames (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh by the way, it is now rewritten with this phrase: "and involved over 200,000 Filipino civilians as well as several political and military figures..." Mind you, there were also showbiz and religious figures. lol. :P --Weekeejames (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know you didn't intend to do it, just reminding. You should have talked the concerned user to its corresponding discussion page. Sorry I can't help for now, maybe next week. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, thanks for the, err, advice. The only thing was, with the opening paragraph, that certain words, such as "tyrannical" for Marcos (despite the fact that he was) were a bit far-fetched and breaches of NPOV. Also, the sentences seemed to be very vague, and the statement that the protests started with the messages from Cardinal Sin to his people sound much more fitting within the chronological sequence of events. The opening paragraph looked to me more like the opening to a documentary, being read by a narrator in a dramatic style. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, no matter how monotonous that may sound! Anyway, thanks, once again, weekeejames, for the, "advice"... ætərnal ðrAعon 08:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Marcos' finest hour"

[edit]

Why was the Marcos-Ver dialouge called "Marcos' finest hour"? Who coined it as such? --Howard the Duck 13:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only found this site that explicitly tells us that this is Marcos' finest hour [1]. Searching for "Marcos finest hour" in both Google Scholar and Google Books did not yield satisfactory results. Perhaps we could edit this heading in a more neutral tone like "Televised Conversation between Gen. Ver and Pres. Marcos". --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: its way too long for section heading. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about simply "Dialogue between Gen. Ver and Pres. Marcos"--Lenticel (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that conversation has been called as "Marcos' finest hour" by a lot of people. --Howard the Duck 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we have sources to back that claim, we can't really put the phrase in the Wiki. Perhaps there's an offline book somewhere that states that.--Lenticel (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On several TV docus they call that live TV conversation as such. I dunno what docu was that. Maybe it'll reappear this February... --Howard the Duck 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you get the details of the docus (for cite:video), I'm actually planning to re-post the drive for improving the article in the Tambayan this Feb. Hopefully by then we are more in the mood to fix the article.--Lenticel (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Even if it's a frequently used term, it just feels so non-neutral to me. Just thinking out loud. Alternativity (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, the media (certainly not Marcos' favorite people) labeled it such. Also, it seems to be a popular name for the Ver-Marcos dialog. --Howard the Duck 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very misleading. That was probably just for the TV cameras. Why not include Col. Balbas revelations: that he was ordered to fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.232.223.180 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable references

[edit]
  • PAge one tackles aftermath of EDSA during 1990

[2]

  • page two cite the youth's role in EDSA I

[3]

  • Role of the AFP in EDSA (actually in Phil. politics)

[4]

  • Another ref that suggested that the EDSA I euphoria didn't last long

[5]

  • the various groups and their interactions before and after 1986

[6]

  • comaparisons between the Indonesian, Burmese and FIlipino reactions against their leaders, might be good for analysis

[7]

These are some refs that I searched about. --Lenticel (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures from the Aquino Center in Tarlac City?

[edit]

Is there anybody who lives in Tarlac City? In Hacienda Luisita is the Aquino Center which houses the Aquino Museum, dedicated to the political couple. This will definitely contain stuff and memorabilia that we can probably picture for this article. --seav (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Marcos Flees!.jpg

[edit]

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture in question has a more improved fair use rationale as of 15:57, March 14, 2008 (PST). Hence, the articles (including this one) with the said picture will not be affected by its supposed deletion on Saturday, March 15, 2008. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 11:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edsa revolution

[edit]

how significant is the 1986 edsa revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.109.104 (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

This section needs a serious rewrite. --TitanOne (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sun, L. (1986, May 14). Sin Finds Political Role Enduring. The Washington Post, p. A31 I found this interesting because it speaks about a forgotten member of the People Power Revolution, he is said to have been influential in ousting Marcos and bringing in the new regime. It speaks in more depth about how the guerrilla forces were turned over to the policing force and talks in more detail about how the Catholic church helped in making sure the rebels were not harmed.

Msiao (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drozdiak, W. (1987, February 24) Aquino Scores Some Victories in Year; Country Still Faces Major Challenges After 'People Power' Revolt. Washington Post Foreign Service p. A1 This addresses the thin aftermath section and speaks about the challenges that the Philippines still faces after the revolution. Challenges such as recreatinginstitutions, and addressing the Philippine's failing economy. It also speaks about the advancements that Aquino was able to achieve such as being able to remove aspects of Marcos' regime.

Msiao (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon LaRouche

[edit]

Are the allegations of LaRouche's involvement in the coup accurate, or for that matter notable? LaRouche is a crackpot and his followers are brainwashed cult members, thus any reference to the importance of his actions needs to be taken with a grain of salt and be verified by external sources. Somehow I doubt LaRouche had much in the way of sway with Marcos, and whatever contact he had with him has likely been blown out of proportion in LaRouche's literature... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.251.67 (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

???

[edit]

When I typed this, I was expecting something different - the yellow revolution which took place in india for improving oilseed production - but it's totally different?? --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Loaded Language about EDSA 2 from the Intro

[edit]

I removed the following material from the introduction, that was added on 9 February 2011:

But the one that follows in 2001, the so called EDSA II can be labeled as a conspiracy among military top brass, business elites, and the hierarchy of the Roman catholic church which removed a democratically-elected president, Joseph Estrada and illegally-swore then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Aside from being not relevant to the topic of the page, this is not cited, personal opinion, and uses weasel words like "so-called." It has no business being on this page, and since the page survived until two days ago without it, I don't think there is a burning need to reference a subsequent political event in the Philippines that is connected to the topic of the page only by the name given to it. Danweasel (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International support

[edit]

Someone should complete this article by listing the counries that supported the overthrow of Marcos such as: US, Japan, Australia, Singapore, UK, France, West Germany, and the Vatican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.132.23 (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed moving EDSA Revolution → EDSA Revolution (disambiguation)

[edit]

I've proposed moving EDSA Revolution → EDSA Revolution (disambiguation) and redirecting EDSA Revolution to point to this article. Please do not discuss here but rather at Talk:EDSA Revolution. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Support in the infobox

[edit]

Please don't add the United States in the infobox. They just issued a statement in support of the protestors and condemning the Marcos regime. No US troops were involved. The US did not provide intelligence, training or humanitarian aid for the protestors. The only direct involvement of US was exiling Marcos to Hawaii which happened after the revolution.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on People Power Revolution. 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) 04:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on People Power Revolution. 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) 16:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on People Power Revolution. 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) 16:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Placing this here for advice regarding inclusion. Waiting for a consensus. - 112.206.111.110 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military and law enforcement units that defected to the "Cagayan 100" in Feb '86

[edit]
  • 20th Air Commando Squadron
  • 5th Fighter Wing
  • All Constabulary and INP regional commands, including Constabulary Metropolitan Command
  • Clark Air Base Command
  • Strategic Intelligence Training School
  • Naval Reserve Command
  • Army intelligence and engineering units
  • Military Intelligence Group
  • Aviation Security Command
  • Scout Ranger Regiment
  • UP Diliman Corps of Cadets

Source: Arillo, Cecilio T. Breakaway: The Inside Story of the Four-day Revolution in the Philippines, February 22-25, 1986. Mandaluyong: CTA and Associates, 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.252.12 (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Set the editing to full protection

[edit]

With the son of the dictator (Marcos Jr.) in power, trolls are now trying to edit or delete this entirely. Lucasthepogikid (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasthepogikid: Wikipedia's protection policy does not recommend pre-emptive protection, as it is contrary to Wikipedia's ideals. If this page experiences a significant level of vandalism or disruptive editing over a sustained period, of which there is none right now, then the page can be protected. Chlod (say hi!) 13:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
then change it to semi-protected Lucasthepogikid (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasthepogikid: I just said that it's not happening for now. Chlod (say hi!) 11:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, trolls are not trying to edit this page, but if you look at the artical about Ferdinand Marcos Sr, and click the talk section, you will see complaints about the word "kleptocrat" and how the sources are "biased", "from the cia/nato" "yellows", etc. Do it before it's too late Lucasthepogikid (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasthepogikid: There's no such thing as "too late". All edits made on Wikipedia can be easily reverted, all pages can be easily protected, and all vandals can easily be blocked. The noise on the talk page remains just that — noise. There's no actual harm being done to the page. Chlod (say hi!) 13:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, just make sure this and all things related to the Marcos will not be revised by egotistical supporters. Lucasthepogikid (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About law

[edit]

i want to know more about law 112.209.37.24 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ap

[edit]

Gumuhit Ng larawan peoples power revulution 2400:6A80:8634:1B20:A015:1022:3F1D:DBCA (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_Power_Revolution&oldid=1219378285"