Contentious topic warning

edit

No need for harsh restrictions as I write this, and I'm hoping it will stay that way. Please, if you have doubt about the appropriateness of a "fact", or if you are new to editing Wikipedia, use this talk page to post your ideas instead of posting it directly in the article. This will ensure I (or another admin) don't have to put editing restrictions in place. I've no interest in editing the content, just observing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Dennis Brown Wouldn't it be better if this was a FAQ or a notice? Just saying. DotesConks (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I created the FAQ. He is incredibly controversial in the Philippines. DotesConks (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
The FAQ is rather self-contradictory. Saying "do not edit" is also something that's completely opposite of the editing policy. Is Q2 even necessary? Frankly, I don't see much purpose in having an FAQ, when practically zero questions have been asked to date. Chlod (say hi!) 02:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • I think my comment is sufficient. I'm not involved in editing anything related to the subject matter and I'm an expat living in PH, so I don't post any opinions on any PH politics, anywhere. I'm free to put Arb's Wikipedia:Contentious topics restrictions on the article if needed, as is any other uninvolved admin. My comment assumes good faith, but makes clear that the threshold for putting restrictions on the article is very low. There isn't any need for a FAQ, which isn't something that policy normally supports. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I deleted the FAQ as a housekeeping matter. We already have clear policies on editing, a FAQ is subject to interpretation and actually confuses the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ideas

edit

The subtitle "Protests and mass actions" might be better worded as "Demonstrations", since there are both groups that support the arrent, and groups that do not support the arrest, so "Demonstrations" is a more neutral term and encompasses both sides. No comment on the merits or contents. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does "Miranda rights" make sense in this context?

edit

The article currently says [...] informed him of the issued warrant, arrested him and read his Miranda rights, and the phrase is also mentioned in an article cited after that sentence, but since "Miranda rights" refers specifically to Miranda v. Arizona in the United States, wouldn't the equivalent in other jurisdictions be named something different? 2A00:807:D7:AB6E:6D62:BAAC:6A95:AAAB (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is also a "Miranda rights" in the Philippines, adopted from the Unted States. Look up "miranda rights philippines" for more information. — 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 01:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I added a link from the phrase in the article to Right to silence#Philippines. 2A00:807:D7:AB6E:6D62:BAAC:6A95:AAAB (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Transfer parts of this article to International Criminal Court investigation in the Philippines

edit

This article details the arrest. Subsequent events after it that should be added to the International Criminal Court investigation in the Philippines article, especially pertaining to the ICC first appearance hearing and events thereafter. — 🍕 Yivan000 viewtalk 02:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply