Talk:People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler
![]() | This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 19 June 2020. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discussion on blurb for In the News on the Main Page
[edit] You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Main_Page#Errors_with_In_the_news. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality in question
[edit]I can't help but question the neutrality of this article. It should be about the litigation, but it seems to focus more on its alleged attack on Philippine press freedom. Even the In the News blurb isn't subtle about it. I've added a better source tp to the lead statement "Historically, the Philippines was regarded as having one of the freest presses in Asia.
" This doesn't seem like the right tp, as the BBC is quite the reputable secondary, but to make such a bold statement in this article's lead that quotes such a loose one-sentence statement from a news article that doesn't even back this up with facts is uncharacteristic of wp. As such, I am tagging this entire article with the POV tp. truflip99 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Truflip99: This case is widely seen as part of an erosion of press freedom in the Philippines. The historical comparison gives needed background. How would you phrase it, while giving context? It's not like this is about a Chinese case, which has never been expected to have a free press. The reason this event is notable is because of the history. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Update: I've found some academic sources and will edit them in soon. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto: Even that statement you just said about the Chinese gives me strong doubt. Shouldn't it be best practice to treat each case as its own? There's a common phrase going around these days: "Not all [insert pl noun] are bad." Our job as editors is to present facts of a notable topic, not to insist that an apparent trend is the cause of a notable topic. --truflip99 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Update: I've found some academic sources and will edit them in soon. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Truflip99: Considering everything in the article, I oppose that there's completely wrong with the WP:POV. No editor is insisting that something's happening. The article is just showing what's happening. It's a fact that many figures and organizations believe that this suit was meant to silence Ressa. It's not WP:OR and our sources can WP:VERIFY it. The subject is literally notable because of the reactions with some observers considering it as a culmination of sort in a series of efforts by Philippine authorities to thwart the critical press. The article is not just about the case. The reactions are a major aspect of the matter.
- But, I agree that the prose may be improved to sound more neutral. Perhaps little additional explanation or abstract may be provided in the narrative of the Reactions sections for fairness and clarity instead of just dumping all the criticism. This sentence (
One question of law that could be brought up at appeal is a question about the prescriptive period.
) is also written as a claim without attribution to whom. Polo (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)- Presenting the case as "just the facts" without any context is a disservice to our readers. The main reason this case is notable is specifically because of the context, i.e. the erosion of press freedom in the Philippines. Of course we should be careful to attribute opinions and avoid stating them in Wikipedia's voice, but it does seem to me that the focus on this case's effect on press freedom is warranted, per the sources. Do you have any specific suggestions for changing any of the wording, or is your objection just about the overall focus? Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Kaldari: Sorry, I didn't see this earlier and I regret not responding to it sooner. The article has since been heavily copy edited and I am satisfied with its content. It looks like both sides are presented sufficiently, although the article still tilts towards siding with the defendant. I have added some detail that was much needed, including the fact that the law in question was drafted and signed by the Aquino Admin, who we all know was part of the Liberal Party, the same party of the current VP Robredo, who is now criticizing the law her own party passed. Somehow that information was conveniently left out. A reader without knowledge of Philippine politics would have automatically assumed the Duterte Admin was behind the law. I hope I need not explain that why that's bad. --truflip99 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Truflip99: That information was always in People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler § Reactions, there was nothing "convenient" about it. I would not have opposed adding it to § Background. Your inability to WP:AGF continues to be worrying. Why can't you accept that I believed this article to be neutral when I published it, and I saw its passage through WP:ITN/C as the community endorsing its quality? Please respond about the voluntary WP:IBAN below as well, if you have no intention of apologizing for your totally unnecessary incivility towards me. Most of the changes made, I do not even oppose. I haven't reviewed it all yet, but it's very possible I oppose none of the changes made. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Kaldari: Sorry, I didn't see this earlier and I regret not responding to it sooner. The article has since been heavily copy edited and I am satisfied with its content. It looks like both sides are presented sufficiently, although the article still tilts towards siding with the defendant. I have added some detail that was much needed, including the fact that the law in question was drafted and signed by the Aquino Admin, who we all know was part of the Liberal Party, the same party of the current VP Robredo, who is now criticizing the law her own party passed. Somehow that information was conveniently left out. A reader without knowledge of Philippine politics would have automatically assumed the Duterte Admin was behind the law. I hope I need not explain that why that's bad. --truflip99 (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Presenting the case as "just the facts" without any context is a disservice to our readers. The main reason this case is notable is specifically because of the context, i.e. the erosion of press freedom in the Philippines. Of course we should be careful to attribute opinions and avoid stating them in Wikipedia's voice, but it does seem to me that the focus on this case's effect on press freedom is warranted, per the sources. Do you have any specific suggestions for changing any of the wording, or is your objection just about the overall focus? Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. It feels like this article sides with the defendant, and that this case is an actual attack on the freedom of the press. Also, while the fact that some consider this to be an attack against press freedom makes this notable, its not the only reason though. Rappler (and Maria Ressa) is a large and notable company, which still makes this case notable even without the alleged attack. Itsquietuptown t • c 04:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to point out the In the News blurb: Press freedom advocates condemn the conviction of Rappler CEO Maria Ressa (pictured) for cyberlibel in the Philippines.
I've hardly seen any other blurb worded like that, if ever. Wikipedia language to me would sound more like: Rappler CEO Maria Ressa (pictured) is convicted of cyberlibel in the Philippines, drawing criticism from press freedom advocates.
See how the focus shifts from "press freedom" to the actual topic? --truflip99 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The In the News blurb is not part of this article. If you believe it needs to be changed, you should raise that argument at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, not here. Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Truflip99, Kaldari, and Polo: Apologies for the delay. See my most recent two edits. [1] (add three new academic cites) [2] (change tag to an {{npov-inline}}). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto: I've put back the POV. We're not done yet. Going to vet body myself and make some copy edits. --truflip99 (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is a response to Truflip99's edit summary([3]). It's not just that one sentence. POV goes all the way down to See also ← You only complained about one sentence. topics unrelated to the trial BUT related to Duterte's political opponents are listed for no reason. ← I have no problem with the § See also being removed as a navbox ({{Rodrigo Duterte}}) was added. However, it is not "for no reason". Many of the sources connect this to Duterte's SONA speech and a general anti-press mentality by the administration, including against ABS-CBN. I deem it in bad faith to remove the POV tp without you or anyone addressing anything. ← Oh yeah? I deem this comment bad faith. Kaldari addressed you, and I addressed your complaint by adding academic sources as stated above. This last bit was entirely unnecessary. You could have restored your tag without making it, and brought additional reasons here. WP:AGF is a core policy of the project, so how about you cool it with "I deem X bad faith"? That's not going to get us anywhere at all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Did some copy edits under Background. Not done yet. --truflip99 (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Tangential disagreement regarding edit summary content, now resolved. Snow let's rap 23:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Psiĥedelisto: Again, I do not maintain that you are a bad faith user, as you have largely accepted the POV changes made to this article and you even made that clear above—You are not a bad faith user. It is not my intention to be uncivil towards you either, and if my language comes across that way, then please understand that this is just how I type. With regards to my opinion that your previous edits were in bad faith, it was merely my opinion of that instance at the time and if you disagree with it, then so be it. Again, I do not extend that view towards you as an editor or as a person, and if you disagree with my opinion, then I shall respect that and move on. As far as your request for WP:IBAN, I ask that you not pursue it as I do not wish to cease communicating with you. --truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
About the Third Opinion request: The request has been removed (i.e. denied) because as currently constituted, this is a conduct dispute and 3O does not offer opinions on conduct disputes (nor will DRN handle them). Hopefully, the private mediation being offered here can work out your issues. If it does not, and you will focus your discussion on content rather than conduct, this request or some other dispute resolution request can be made. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page) |
Just in case future readers are wondering, the NPOV issue has been resolved, as the nominator removed his own tag. Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Re-raising issue about neutrality
[edit]![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
This article looks a little too much apologetic to the subject. It has been loaded with excessive albeit irrelevant/unnecessary details in an effort to blacken the credibility of the court decision which ultimately looks like an attempt to slander the credibility of the entire PH justice system but, noticeably, without any opinion from the voices of qualified people such as lawyers, lawmakers and law researchers. This is most prominent in the Reaction section. Despite the lead "reactions are mixed" all the reactions listed were negative, with additional tangential history added that are otherwise irrelevant or questionable (as a contradicting fact, the infamous Ampatuan massacre that killed about 32 journalists happened before Duterte's term). It can be argued that all the negative reactions were made from a biased perspective, came from the same field as the subject (Ressa being a journalist) who all feel "attacked" on their profession as jounalists themselves. Which is a common response and defense mechanism. But there are different voices such as this: https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/06/18/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/my-stand-on-maria-ressas-conviction/732551 Indeed as pointed out by that article, the victim here was Keng, and the perpetrator is Rappler and Ressa. In the eyes of the Philippine Law, and to the People of the Philippines, Rappler and Ressa are guilty of destroying the life of a businesman, Wilfredo Keng, whose business greatly suffered losses due to the article by Rappler, which was published during the time Keng cannot make legal actions as Rappler was perceived to be favoured by then-Aquino admin. One would expect, from a clean-slate perspective, to at least find the opinion of the victim, Keng, on the Reactions section because above all the opinions hurled at the court ruling, his opinion would have been more relevant than those of Duterte's critics because he was at the centerpiece of the case opposite to Rappler. And the fact that his fair share of voice on this article has been omitted is enough proof that this article has an undeniably biased tone. Azuresky Voight (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Azuresky Voight: I did not see this until now because you did not ping me or tag the article. I have to admit that I view Ramon Tulfo with a considerable degree of skepticism as to his reliability; but would not oppose adding that column. It is worth nothing that I wrote this article in June 2020, the same timeframe as when Tulfo wrote his piece. I would say that now that we are in September 2021, a reconsideration of the sources is not at all a bad thing, neither would be taking those sources and balancing any later perspectives by lawyers, legal experts etc. as having more WP:DUE weight than journalists; who, given the nature of their profession, would continue writing about this case long after the world moves on, and would probably not have been writing in the moment it happened and none of the legal fallout in other cases or appeals had occurred. However, it is worth noting that I do cite Filipino lawyers who wrote opinion pieces, I do not only cite reporters. The totality of the reliable sources, even those outside the Philippines with nothing to lose, in June 2020 certainly were very against the ruling. In § Reactions, I did cite Harry Roque, himself a lawyer (and also plaintiff in Disini v. Sec'y of Justice). I imagine that there are more supportive voices from lawyers out there now than there were before, so we're firmly in WP:SOFIXIT territory. Feel free to make edits to update the article, provide sources, etc.; I don't WP:OWN it. I don't have time personally to seek out more positive voices that may now exist, but if you do the work, I'm not opposed. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- I discovered after writing this that I am replying to a permanently blocked editor who also has no talk page access, so obviously they aren't going to be the one doing the work, but the advice I gave them applies equally to anyone else with the same concerns. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 17:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use Philippine English
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Start-Class Philippine-related articles
- Mid-importance Philippine-related articles
- WikiProject Philippines articles
- Start-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Start-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Mid-importance Freedom of speech articles
- Start-Class Journalism articles
- Unknown-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles