Talk:Patriotic Oath (Philippines)

DepEd Order 54-2001 version
I have just reverted this edit to bring the quoted DepEd Order 54-2001 version of the oath back into agreement with this citedd supporting source. That source is the text of the order itself. The reverted edit had inserted the word "mga".

After having done this, I noticed that the source cited for the original version of the oath (, an archived web page from an apparently now defunct. site regarding something along the lines of filipiniana lifestyle) also contains what is purported there to be the revisedd version of the oath. In that version, the line corresponding to the line affected by the reverted edit reads: "Diringgin ko ang payo ng aking mga magulang." (with the "mga" which the reverted edit had sought to insert, and which is not present in the order itself).

I believe that my edit removing the "mga" is correct, and WP:QUOTE says that a quote should contain the verbatim text from the source being quoted (in this case, without the "mga"). However, if there is a gramatical error in the DepEd Order 54-2001 version which some later sources corrected in purported requotes by inserting the "mga", perhaps that ought to be clarified in a footnote. I don't speak Tagalog, and I am not able to produce such a footnote with much confidence that I got it right. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(added) Having done the above, I noticed this earlier edit which appears to have similarly sought to correct the grammar of the DepEd Order 54-2001 version as quoted in the article. I reverted that edit as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Revisited
I'm revisiting this talk page topic, with a new slant on it.

This edit (a reversion) caught my eye. I didn't have a problem with the reversion, but I thought to add a second and more accessible supporting source. As I was doing that I noticed that the text of the oath as given in the article differed from the text given in the supporting source, and I corrected the text given in the article. Looking at DOE DO 54 s.2001 again got me thinking more broadly, though.
 * The 1987 RP constitution does not give the Education secretary, or any Cabinet Secretary, the authority to modify properly enacted laws.
 * Section 25 of RA8491 says


 * The text of the pledge specified in RA8491 differs from both the text presented in the article as the DepEd Order 54-2001 version and the text presented as the Original version.
 * House bill H. No. 4042 and senate bill S.B. No. 2169 were introduced in the 15th and 16th Congresses to amend RA8491 and to modify the text of the pledge to what looks to me like the text described as the Original version in this article. As far as I can see from a quick check, it doesn't look to me as if either of those bills were enacted into law.
 * It looks to me as if RA8491 is still current law. It also looks to me as if DOE DO No. 54 amounts to a directive to DOE personnel to violate RA8491 and to assure that schoolchildren likewise violate that law.

If I understand this correctly, it looks to me as if this article as currently presented is incomplete and/or inaccurate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Patriotic Oath (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 https://web.archive.org/web/20120323002039/http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DO%2054_11-09-01_00001.pdf to http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/DO%2054_11-09-01_00001.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325052201/http://spcp75.com/spcp75/htm_spcp75/lifestyle/filipiniana/fil_pledge.htm to http://spcp75.com/spcp75/htm_spcp75/lifestyle/filipiniana/fil_pledge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Text of the Patriotic Oath (revisited)
This follows on this edit, the most recent of several related edits modifying the asserted official text of the oath. I see that the PDF version dated November 9 differs from the web page version dated November 12 and that the later web page source mentions without comment the PDF source with which it differs. Both sources are Philippine Government sources. The article currently cites cites the PDF version and presents the version of the oath from that source. I don't know which source is correct. It is not clear to me which version ought to be used in the text presented in the article prose but, as far as I can see, in order to comply with WP:DUE the article needs to cite both sources and note the difference. Unless a better approach emerges in discussion here, I will probably leave whatever version is presented in the prose stand and add a note with the information that the other official source contains a differing version. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The one in the PDF file is the correct one, especially that it is the scanned copy of the actual department order with the then-secretary's signature. "I will obey the rules of my school" is "Susundin ko ang tuntunin ng paaralan" in Filipino. They probably missed that line while creating the webpage (accidentally mixed with the next line "Tutuparin ko ang tungkulin" and became "Susundin ko ang tungkulin"). Here is a news article that reported the revision (although the article incorrectly used "ng" instead of "nang"). The one in the PDF file is also the same text in my 1st grade (2006) civics textbook. -Hiwilms (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That analysis sounds reasonable. I think that this needs to be clarified in the article, though. The erronious http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-54-s-2001 web page, even if not cited in the article, is still out there on RP government web pages and in internet archives even if those are deleted. The article is short, and I'm not sure whether a visible note is necessary. I think there's a choice here between a note visible in the article and a WP:invisible comment in the wikitext. Any opinions? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The National Commission for Culture and the Arts uses the correct text of Panatang Makabayan. I have already contacted DepEd about the erroneous text so I think an invisible comment is enough. I'm hoping that they will fix it soon. -Hiwilms (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added an invisible comment here. Improve as needed. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

English text
This edit caught my eye. It is one of two edits that I reverted here. That involved a cited supporting source and, after doing the reversion, my eye wandered upward to the English text for which this source and one other are cited in support. The cite impacted by the reversion links to the page of the source which is not presently accessible online, so I was unable to verify the text in the article against that source. The article also cites a second source, however, and that one was verifiable here. On checking, I found that the version of the text in that source disagreed with the version which it was cited to support in the article. Digging around a little, I found other sources which, like this one, present versions of the text which are similar to but not precisely the same as the version in the article. I thought about clarifying this in a footnote explaining that different sources offer different translations and citing several examples, but didn't do that. I'll invite some other editor to do that, or I might come back to this article at some point and do it myself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)