Talk:Armed Forces of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armed Forces of the Philippines article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): National militaries task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Southeast Asian military history task force

	This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Article movement 2 Copyvio 3 Copyvio again? 4 Different commands: 5 Blacklisted hyperlink 6 Conflicts re Philippine Declatation of Independence 7 Armed Forces of the Philippines Structure 8 5 star General and Admiral 9 Naval Rank 10 Clean-up (Removal of ranks and special forces etc) 11 World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos 12 Suggestions For A Section

[edit] Article movement

The official title of the body is the Armed Forces of the Philippines and therefore this article needs to be moved to that namespace. --Gerald Farinas 06:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Damn Right!

[edit] Copyvio

New article incorporating all text from the old article except the obvious cut-and-paste from the Philippine Defense Department website is at /Temp. I have no idea why this heavy-handed approach is appropriate for a copy vio'ed section; if we move that page we lose the editing history of this article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the admin who did this, apparently it's standard Wikipedia policy. See User_talk:Mushroom#Your_copyvio_edits_to_a_bunch_of_Philippine_articles. --Edward Sandstig 08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As an alternative, here is the last "good" version before the edits of the cut-and-paste offender (unregistered, naturally). This is now at /Temp2. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How I sometimes wish they'd require registration for all edits. Easier to track offenders. :) --Edward Sandstig 08:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mushroom has graciously reconsidered his position, and reverted this and other articles. See User_talk:Mushroom. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio again?

We recently re-started this article minus the copyvio portion, but had it reverted again today to a supposedly "non-copyvio" version. Which portions of the most recent version were copyvios? --Edward Sandstig 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different commands:

Can anyone create articles on these commands:

1. Northern Luzon Command (NOLCOM)
2. National Capital Region Command (NCRCOM)
3. Southern Luzon Command (SOLCOM)
4. Western Command (WESCOM)
5. Visayas Command?
6. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)

Thanks. --Howard the Duck 11:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklisted hyperlink

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)

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

[edit] Conflicts re Philippine Declatation of Independence

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)

[edit] Armed Forces of the Philippines Structure

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.

[edit] 5 star General and Admiral

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)

[edit] Naval Rank

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)

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

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)

[edit] World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos

It seems to me that this section about World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos would fit much better into this article than it fits into History of the Philippines (1898–1946). I propose moving it. Comments? Objections? Suggestions? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem odd to include the whole section here unless the AFP was actively involved in pursuing these benefits on behalf of the veterans. It might fit better with a re-write though. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have refrained from challenging some assertions in this article because of the lead section assertion which says:"The AFP traces its roots from the Katipunan, the revolutionary force founded by Andres Bonifacio in 1892 which waged war against Spain and the United States for Philippine Independence. [...]" I think that this falls under that umbrella. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to challenge what's written in the History section. It's unreferenced and needs work. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions For A Section

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)

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)

You could actually roll this into the History section. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)