Talk:Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines

I need to add the important assembly news about Lagdameo's major remarks on the assembly held. The CBCP took active part in the midterm elections.

--Florentino floro 12:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

additional most imporant news after the cbcp assembly

--Florentino floro 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did add the latest CBCP Comelec and Malacanang word wars over the overhaul.

--Florentino floro 06:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the latest hour report on the HSA act comment by Palace.

--Florentino floro 09:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed section called "Controversy"

I removed the sub-section called "Controversy" for two reasons. It only listed one controversy and that controversy was not with the CBCP but with some individual Catholic bishops and dioceses. This article is not about Catholic bishops in the Philippines but rather about the Catholic bishops' CONFERENCE. The Conference was not involved with the donations from the sweepstakes, as far as I know. The article linked to only mentions that the CBCP is conducting an investigation, not that the CBCP received money. --Bruce Hall (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fr.Dan Vicente Cancino, MI, executive secretary of CBCP’s Episcopal Commission on Health Care is a high ranking offical of the CBCP, therefore what he says and does as the executive secretary is as a spokesperson of CBCP. --Raabbustamantel (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No copyright material

User:Raabbustamante keeps re-inserting copyrighted material, material copy-and-pasted from online news articles, with only a word or two changed. This is not allowed. I have removed it now for the third time, indicating it is copyrighted material but User:Raabbustamante insists on putting it back in. Am I wrong? Is it not copyrighted? Raabbustamante please explain your rationale here. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

let him reword it then. he seems active enough. User:Raabbustamante please reword.Reijiro (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section should include controversies regarding the Conference, not Catholic bishops

This article is about the Catholic bishops conference here in the Philippines. It is about the Philippine institution, one which parallels other similar institutions -- other bishops conferences -- in other countries. It is not about Catholic bishops in the Philippines. The CBCP as an institution was not significantly involved in the PCSO Pajero bishops scandal. The donations did not flow through the conference but rather went directly to the dioceses. The CBCP issued a few statements but that was about it. The Pajero bishops scandal is therefore not a controversy about the Conference. It is a controversy involving Catholic bishops, not the conference, and therefore should not be included in this article about the Conference. I suggest that the paragraphs about the Pajero bishops be removed from this Conference article. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

in the "leadership" section individual priest and bishops action not officially sanctioned by the CBCP are mentioned. offically only the actions approved by the Pope is the offical actions taken by the CBCP. but this rule is often not followed. the unethical actions of members of a institution that promotes morals are valid point to mention. if you wish I shall add all notable members of cbcp and thier stance. if you wish. same as the action of one supreme court judge or senator puts into question the supreme court for the former and the senate for the latter. --Raabbustamante (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Raabbustamante brings up several points. Raabbustamante says, "in the "leadership" section individual priest and bishops action not officially sanctioned by the CBCP are mentioned." If this is true, then those references should be removed.

Raabbustamante says, "offically only the actions approved by the Pope is the offical actions taken by the CBCP." This is not true. The Pope has no formal role in the Conference. He is not a member of conference. He does not have a vote. He does not approve their statements. It is the Philippine bishops that decide what their Conference does. The Pope and the Vatican do solicit the CBCP's advice from time to time on matters relating to the Church in the Philippines but is the Vatican or the Pope that acts, not the CBCP.

Raabbustamante says, "the unethical actions of members of a institution that promotes morals are valid point to mention. if you wish I shall add all notable members of cbcp and thier stance. if you wish. same as the action of one supreme court judge or senator puts into question the supreme court for the former and the senate for the latter."

This I think gets to the heart of the matter. Raabbustamante I think mis-characterizes what a bishops conference is. It is not like the Philippine Supreme Court nor the Philippine Senate. It is more like the United Nations. Indeed one can think of the Conference as a kind of United Bishops of the Philippines where each bishop retains his individual authority -- or ecclesiastical sovereignty if you will (instead of national sovereignty). A bishops conference does not rule over its bishops; a bishops conference does not and cannot discipline a bishop. Rather a bishops conference is a way for independent bishops to come together and talk and to issue joint statements, which may or may not have power, much like the UN. It has little real power except in very limited situations given to it by the Vatican such as the rules for how the mass and other liturgy is performed in the Philippines. The bishops are still responsible for their own actions and for their diocese, in unity with the Vatican. The Wikipedia article on bishops conference, or Episcopal Conference, makes this clear: "...conferences of bishops do not participate in the teaching authority of the college of bishops ... while a conference of bishops can assist the individual bishops of the conference it cannot substitute for the authority which they individually possess.... Individual bishops do not relinquish their authority to the conference, and remain responsible for the governance of their respective diocese."

Therefore since individual bishops and priests are not answerable or accountable to the Conference, controversies involving bishops directly should not be listed. Only controversies directly involving the CBCP should be listed. Are there any? The PCSO Pajero bishops scandal is not related to the CBCP. The PCSO donated the vehicles directly to the dioceses. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Huge problem with this section event existing see Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section. Let this not devolve into an attack page--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite disturbed by the Controversy section since some claims here are unsupported by cites. For example: "This is said to explain the CBCP’s more lenient stand towards the Arroyo Presidency." There's also some lifted and uncited sections from http://www.ucanews.com/news/philippine-bishops-accused-of-abuse-cover-up/68411. I think it's best to study these sections one by one and see if the claims are accurate and does not violate copyright. There's also probable WP:NPOV and WP:V issues on section titles like "An Opinionated and Influential CBCP in Philippine Politics" --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for restoring portions of criticism that can be reliably sourced, do not involve WP:OR and are not copyright violations, but the article as it was was a mess, and so I've walked it back to pre-attack-page status. Raabbustamante (talk · contribs) has some explaining to do. I am willing to believe he is editing in good faith, but so far all his contributions exhibit venom and bias against the topic. Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

all articles are well cited, your comments about uncited sources on the Paedophilia portion can not be true as even the source is the archbishopric of boston. the editors are clearly biased in this respect. user:Elizium and other seem to like to maintain a pristine CBCP page devoid of any criticism. the portion about HIV?AIDS is from a CBCP executive, speaking as a High ranking official of that institution.Raabbustamantel (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Let's break out these sections and talk about them individually because there are separate issues. The issues include (a) adding in information about Catholic bishops into an article about the Bishops Conference, (b) copyright violations, (c ) original research, WP:OR. and (d) NPOV. So I'll create separate sections on each individual criticism and we can reach a consensus on each separately. (User:Raabbustamante please use proper formatting when commenting on this or any other Talk page.)--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way I note this in Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section: "Many criticism sections found in articles are present because editors collected negative material, but have not had the time to properly integrate the negative material into the other sections of the article. Such negative sections should be tagged with a { {POV-section} } or { {criticism-section} } to notify other editors that more work is needed to integrate the material.... Sometimes a section is created to describe a significant criticism made by a notable critic. In these situations, the section title should be something like "View of Maria Smith" or "Reaction of the NY Times", and should avoid the word "criticism" in the section title. and this: "In 2006 User:Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."" Perhaps we should do away with a criticism section entirely and integrate the needed and relevant information into the rest of the article. We should discuss each individual subsection of the criticism section separately. Discussing specifics is the best way to reach a WP:Consensus.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

PCSO Pajero bishops

Should there be a section about the PCSO Pajero bishops in this article? I believe that we should not include any information on the PCSO scandal. My comments are in the above section. This includes the subsection entitled "CBCP and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement "claims that to garner Church support for Arroyo’s embattled presidency, the administration gave money to members of the CBCP." better have cites backing it up as this is a serious accusation. Who claims this? Any records showing that the administration gave money to CBCP? --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Cite 13 and Cite 3 seems to be the same so I think it's best to delete this section since it's already discussed earlier in the article anyways. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Subsection titled "An Opinionated and Influential CBCP in Philippine Politics"

This is poorly written and includes some original research. It clearly needs to be re-written and maybe put into a different section or into its own section entirely. It has some WP:Third-party sources but is still lacking.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I propose the removal of the cite "Do you agree with the CBCP that the President...". It's basically PhilStar's comment section. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Statement " This interference with secular society are often times unwanted and considered meddlesome" is not supported by cite 14 (aforementioned comment area) and cite 15 (cite only said critics who said they were meddling. Keep cite and statement about the "right to air their opinions". --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep cite about Wikileaks. It's properly cited. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Consider revising/deleting "The CBCP continue to voice out opinions in areas such as foreign affairs[19], potential laws (such as bills that address divorce)[20], and airs opinions on government agency activities[21]" Those cites only show single cases. They do not state that voicing out opinions is a continuing activity for these fields.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Subsection: HIV/AIDS Misinformation and Promotion of Misconceptions

I think that this entire section violates copyright law and is illegal. It is copy-and-pasted from the cited article. It should be removed or completely rewritten. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think deletion is best for now. An external party must say that CBCP is spreading HIV/AIDS Misinformation and Promotes Misconceptions otherwise this will have some WP:V and WP:NPOV issues --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Subsection: "Bible Animé" project

This is within the Controversy section. It should be moved perhaps into a "projects" or "activity" section. However I think that an argument can be made that it is not notable enough to be included anywhere in the article. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a notable feature/app since I can't find later mentions after the 2008 article at Cite 24. It's better off deleted. Cite 25 is dead so I can't comment on its usefulness--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Paedophia

Added more reliable sources for ref. clearly it is relevant as this has been reported several times, nationally and internationally, a relevant problem that was not included until recently. before recent edit, article was very biased to one side. to revert to original article is to purge any valid criticism. read leadership and individuals are mention with out sanctioned CBCP approval.Raabbustamantel (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It was also reverted because it contains a lot of copyright violations. Neutral Point of View is simply one of the issues we are discussing here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because "it...has been reported several times, nationally and internationally" does not make the criticism relevant to this article. This article is not about Catholic bishops in the Philippines or even Catholic priests. It is about the Episcopal Conference.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Subsection: Paedophilia

• Cite 19 (crin..) and Cite 20 (cpca...) doesn't support the first paragraphs claims so I suggest removal.
• Second paragraph is copyvio although the cites support the claim. Consider revising to avoid copyvio.
• third paragraph is copyvio. cites don't support the claim but are rather separate cases about child abuse. Cite 28 is an editorial so its importance as a cite is suspected.

--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this section is relevant. All there has been is a statement from the CBCP. The CBCP has no power over the bishops. The CBCP cannot discipline or remove the bishops. Bishops do not report to the CBCP. Rather, it is the CBCP that is under and is accountable to the bishops. The CBCP is just a forum for joint action, like the UN or a Chamber of Commerce. We do discuss UN member actions within the UN article. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about Raabbustamantel's comments in the previous section I am reminded that not all valid criticisms should be mentioned in this article. That a neutral point of view is not the same thing as "balance". We need to consider Wikipedia's policy on NPOV, WP:NPOV. especially balancing aspects section ( WP:BALASPS) which states: "...discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't be this spelled as "pedophilia" as this should have used Philippine spellings in the first place? All references (nos. 19 to 24) use the "pedophilia" spelling. The BBC reference doesn't use the word on its report. –HTD 09:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

as per Hpward the duck .Pedo or Paedo are both valid and correct spellings, you can change it if you want. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Pedophilia. as per iloilo wanderer: these are relevance and continuing issue. not a isolated and singular event. these issues are in the realm of the CBCP's purview. [[User:IRaabbustamanter|Raabbustamante] (talk) 8:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I could care less if it's on the "CBCP's purview", but the article should be consistent on what dialect of English to use. The section on pedophilia use -ize: "apologized", "recognized". The rest of the article is in Philippine English (dates are in MDY, "honorary" instead of "honourary"). In this case it is the "correct" spelling is "pedophilia". –HTD 13:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

as I said, you can go change it. its not a big deal (talk) 9:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed re English. The Philippines largely uses American English spelling

Purvue means "2. (law) The scope of a statute./3. Scope or range of interest or control." according to Wiktionary [1]. The CBCP has no legal or Canon law power to oversee bishops in the Philippines. Pedophilia is not in the scope of the powers of the CBCP. One article [2] says "Every bishop has the responsibility of reporting directly to Rome," Asis said. He said that because it is Rome that instructs the bishop directly what to do, the CBCP has no idea how many cases are currently being investigated. So, I'm sorry but User:Raabbustamante's statement that "these issues are in the realm of the CBCP's purview" is incorrect. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Iloilo Wanderer is RIGHT, the CBCP never does anything wrong. they are not responsible for any evil actions. only the righteous actions are the works of CBCP and the Bishops. I shall delete this slanderous statements, no Priest has ever been found guilty in the Philippines. these are all lies by athiest, communist and immoral people. Iloilo Wandererthank you for pointing it out --Catholicavenger (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A reminder: No Edit Warring ever, for any reason, period

With all the back-and-forth and reverting that has been going on, I think that it is important to remind people -- including myself -- that edit-warring is prohibited in Wikipedia. There is no excuse for an WP:Edit War. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. "I am right" is not an excuse. How do you know if you are engaging in an edit war? Look to the three-revert rule, see WP:3RR, which says,

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions

If an editor finds that they are reverting for a third time, they should stop. Simply stop. There is no justification for reverting three-times. Stop until an WP:Consensus has been reached (which is not the same an unanimity of course). I've stopped editing the main article because I came close to that 3-revert bright line. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Email Iloilo Wanderer, these unchristian actions should not be allowed! User:Catholicavenger.iloiloICatholicavenger.iloilo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catholicavenger.iloilo (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Good job iloilo wanderer inviting friends to do your reverts for you, good job CatholicavengerLenticelHoward the Duck very nice puff piece you have. (talk) 9:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is entirely proper to notify relevant WikiProjects in cases of content dispute. That being said, please see WP:COPYVIO. Copy pasting copy righted material onto Wikipedia is against policy. Furthermore, please see WP:NEU & WP:CRITICISM. This article is being inundated with criticism of the subject in a manor that is making it appear to be an WP:ATTACKPAGE of the subject. While I am not saying that we should go for WP:TNT at this point, for the pillar of neutrality the criticism of the subject needs to be integrated into the content of the article and the article needs to be grown to balance out the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast which exactly is copy pasted? the quotes can't be edited because that would be slanderous. (talk)

sources are misrepresented

For example, on wikipedia, the "HIV/AIDS Misinformation and Promotion of Misconceptions" section states:

The "CBCP and the Philippine Anti-discrimination bill" section (which is near the top and not the "CBCP and the Philippine Anti-discrimination bill" lower down) states:

On December 2011, CBCP was reported to urge the Philippine Senate not to pass Senate Bill 2814 known as Anti-Ethnic, Racial or Religious Discrimination and Profiling Act of 2011 (also known as the Anti discrimination bill)<ref> http://directory.ucanews.com/news/anti-discrimination-bill-may-justify-gay-marriage-cbcp-official/2056</ref>

is a 2015 source which does not mention a bill number, does not mention "senate", it only states that in 2011:

In an interview with CBCP News, Fr. Jerome R. Secillano, executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP)’s Permanent Committee on Public Affairs (PCPA), explained that while supporting measures that mandate equal treatment for all, the Church is concerned about such measures having far-reaching implications which may later prove contrary to Church doctrines and other Biblical teachings.

The "CBCP and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo" section states:

In 2011, a controversy arose for the CBCP when several members where accused of receiving millions from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to support her administration. claims that to garner Church support for Arroyo’s embattled presidency, the administration gave money to members of the CBCP.

yet, the source is clear that it is reporting about comments by unnamed critics and not making the claims itself:

The critics claim the donations led the bishops to take a softer stance on the Arroyo administration despite the many corruption and electoral scandals that rocked it.

The source does not mention if the recipients are social service organizations that are contracted by the government:

The recipients of the donations for the purchase of 4×4 vehicles were the Diocese of Butuan (P1.704 million released on July 9, 2009), Zamboanga Archdiocesan Social Action Apostolate (P1.54 million released on July 9, 2009), Archdiocese of Cotabato (P1.44 million released on Feb. 24, 2009), Diocese of Bangued, Abra (P1.129 million released on Jan. 16, 2009), Roman Catholic Prelate of Isabela, Basilan (P1.125 million released on July 2, 2009), and Apostolic Vicariate Bontoc (P600,000 released on April 30, 2007). A seventh recipient, Caritas Nueva Segovia, which covers the province of Ilocos Sur, received P720,000 on March 17, 2010, under the general term “financial assistance.”

Are these social service organizations?

The "CBCP in Philippine Politics" section states:

The CBCP, is considered as an influential body in Philippine politics and society in general, has been headed by some of the country's Catholic prelates. This interference with secular society are often times unwanted and considered meddlesome <ref>http://www.philstar.com/inbox-world/73180/do-you-agree-cbcp-president-should-revisit-laws-e-vat-and-oil-deregulation-light</ref><ref>http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/677063/cbcp-on-meddling-in-national-politics-we-are-citizens-too</ref>

The 2008 source (philstar.com) titled the user generated content (which it calls INBOX QUESTION) as "Do you agree with the CBCP that the President should revisit laws on e-VAT and oil deregulation in light of the oil crisis?" That is not a reliable source.

According to the cable, Archbishop Antonio Franco, made it clear to the bishops during their annual meeting that the Vatican “did not support popular uprising as a method to remove government.” He urged the group “to be cautious, keeping in that it should refrain from political activism.”<ref>http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/57239/cables-show-how-us-intervened-in-the-philippines</ref><ref><https://www.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05MANILA3202.html</ref>

If the "the Vatican 'did not support popular uprising as a method to remove government'", what method did they support?

On January 7, 2008, Bishop Leonardo Medroso, chairman of the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Canon Law and bishop of Tagbilaran diocese, Bohol, issued the appeal to priests to stay away from politics, ahead of the May 2010 elections. He cited Code of Canon Law, prohibition, Canon 285, which forbids all clerics from entering politics and that priests "cannot have an active role in political parties unless the need to protect the rights of the Church or to promote the common good." Three priests, Msgr. Crisanto de la Cruz, Fr. Ronilo Maat Omanio and Fr. Ed Panlilio, who ran in the last elections were suspended from their pastoral duties as a result of their entry into the political arena. Only Panlilio won.<wikilink></nowiki> [a dead link]

So, three priests who ignored their discipline and ran for office were suspended for ignoring their discipline. Is that a story?

The "Paedophilia" section should be dated correctly and placed in sequence and specify what the CBCP did or did not do.

The added content should have better sources and quit warring. 107.10.198.48 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Progress

It seems that User:Raabbustamante is finally okay with deleting copyvios. I hope that they can address the other issues that was brought up here such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed WP:COPYVIO as per user:Lenticel user talk: Raabbustamante 180.191.114.14 (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that we have made good progress. I will try edit for clarity and grammar and see about integrating the controversy section better into the whole article thereby bringing it more in line with Wikipedia's policy of leaning against separate criticism sections, per Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section, which quotes User:Jimbo Wales stating the policy thusly, "(I)t isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a ... section of ... criticisms."--

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Bishops' Conference 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130713094022/http://cbcpnews.net:80/blog/2013/07/07/villegas-elected-cbcp-president/ to http://cbcpnews.net/blog/2013/07/07/villegas-elected-cbcp-president/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Bishops' Conference 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=83818
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901232739/http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=84013 to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=84013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080222172035/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view_article.php?article_id=75587 to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view_article.php?article_id=75587
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=104678
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=109727

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) 23:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for unprotecteded, normal status

Not sure if this is the correct template, but it does seem like the eventual protection status of this article isn't needed anymore. I therefore propose unprotected, normal status for it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Chicbyaccident This page isn't protected, not since 2015; requests for lowering protection go at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: It seems it can't be moved, though? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it is move protected; since the protecting admin is inactive you'd go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level and ask there for reduction. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)