Template:Did you know nominations/Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971
"The delegates to the Constitutional Convention who were deemed anti-marcos like Napoleon Rama, Voltaire Garcia, Teofisto Guingona, Jose Nolado, Bren Guiao, and Jose Concepcion were also detained." Duka (2008) Struggle for Freedom p. 307
 * ... that oppositionist delegates of the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 were among the first to be arrested when Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in the Philippines? "The meticulous planning and flawless execution of martial rule emphasized the brilliance and thoroughness of Marcos. Congress was padlocked and its most eloquent members detained. The constitutional convention was purged of its anti-Marcos members...." - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 157
 * ALT1: ... that the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 was rocked in May 1972 when a delegate exposed a bribery scheme in First Lady Imelda Marcos was implicated, alongside 13 others? "In May 1972, before all the assembled members of the Convention, Quintero unexpectedly made a public disclosure that the media called a 'bombshell'. He had been receiving, he said, money in envelops, amounting to over P11,000 which almost certainly came from Marcos' wife. He set all the envelops aside, waiting for the right time for him to speak out. 'I want to do the correct thing,' he said." - http://www.bantayog.org/quintero-eduardo-t/

"On that day, delegate Eduardo Quintero of Leyte ... revealed that he and a number of fellow delegates had been receiving money from Marcos.... By his account, Quintero received envelopes containing money that were supposed to have come from the First Lady." - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 133
 * ALT2: ... that oppositionist delegates in the Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1971 tried several times to add provisions disallowing Ferdinand or Imelda Marcos from staying in power after 1973? "Even as the law calling fro elections for the convention was being deliberated in Congress, anti-Marcos politicians tried to incorporate a 'Ban the Marcoses' provision.... Thereafter, anti-Marcos delegates to the convention tried to build the 'Ban Marcos' provision into the charter they were drafting." (The next two paragraphs detail the Rama resolution and the Manglapus committee resolution.) - Magno (ed.) Kasaysayan. p. 132
 * Reviewed: Chang and Eng Bunker, Nominated on July 18
 * Comment: DYK Check shows 11707 characters; Created 4 days ago; Made this myself, but also made sure Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows copyvio problems are "unlikely". I even tried to paginate the references I used for the specific facts. This is my first DYK nom, so I shouldn't need to QPQ review, but I reviewed Chang and Eng Bunker anyway. :D

Created by Alternativity (talk). Self-nominated at 07:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC).


 * Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg	There are some unsourced or redundant statements in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'll take a look at the unsourced statements as soon as I can - that's probably just a sentence layout oversight on my part, in most cases. I'm not sure how to address redundancies, though. Would you mind pointing me in a more specific direction, redundancies-wise? Thanks again for the review.- Alternativity (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Any updates? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Narutolovehinata5. Well, I've shortened the lede section where I suppose there might have been some redundancy, although I've tried to make sure it still serves as a summary of the rest of the article's outline. I've added a more definitive references for the arrested delegates and the rushing of the approval. I've tried to figure out which facts don't have citations yet, but mostly they're covered by the citation at the end of each paragraph, and I didn't want to overcite unnecessarily. If you have any more specfic suggestions, I think I can quickly make specific changes, but I think I covered it all already... I hope? - Alternativity (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless the information in the lede isn't repeated in the article body, I'd suggest that you remove the references from the lede as redundant; just keep them in the article text. In addition, I'd suggest that you'd link to either Martial law in the Philippines or to Proclamation No. 1081 during the first mention of "Martial Law". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do when I get to work in a few hours. Although I thought a big part of the point of the lede section was to provide a brief outline the contents of the rest of the article, including major themes/issues? Hehe. Maybe I've been writing ledes wrong all this time. - Alternativity (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant the lede looks fine to me as it is right now, what I meant to say that the citations in the lede are unnecessary unless the information isn't anywhere else in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh! Okay. Anyway. I did what I could to shorten it, and also linked the first mention of Martial Law to Implementation of Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos, which is the most specific article for the topic in question. I've moved references to outside of the lede section.  Personally I'm scared that's going to leave the lede section vulnerable to POV pushing, but maybe I should trust the process a bit more. hehe.  Anyway. Cleanup done, as far as I can tell. :D Do tell me if there's anything more I should try. - Alternativity (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is too late to request for 21 September? :S
 * Right now September 21 is already on queue. I suppose I can give a quick review now and then post at WT:DYK if this can still go up for tomorrow. If not, an alternative date could be September 23, which is the date Martial Law was actually announced. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hm. Yes, I agree it won't make it to Sept 23, not just because of time, but because the offline references are a bit hard to access, and they don't all necessarily contain the information you described. (Will start looking more closely at what's in Philippine Constitutional Convention election, 1970, though. Huh. This might take a while. :S = Alternativity (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It's been a few weeks since my last comment, can you still do it? I can recommend to you some libraries you can visit if you need access to offline sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * - I'll give it another try. Is it okay if this proceeds a bit slowly? I just regained access to a core source. - Alternativity (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd say you can take your time, but given that this nomination has been open since July, it already feels too long. I'll give you until the end of the month to address the issues. If they aren't addressed by then, I will fail the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I think I needed the time mostly to figure out what else of historical importance was left out. As far as the history books are concerned, the major events of the convention seem to be the long debates on the Ban Marcos provision deliberations, the Quintero Expose, the arrest of the delegates, and the rushing of the final draft.  (I'm going to add one more, since I just realized there was no mention of the convention being one of the many places hit by the 1972 Manila Bombings, although that seemed like a minor event in terms of its impact on the actual convention event/deliberations/proceedings) Anyway. I've added a full list of delegates from Philippine Constitutional Convention election, 1970, although I feel that's more relevant to the election article, so I made the table collapsible.  I don't want to call too much attention away from the actual historical events of the convention.  Very few sources bother to mention the venue, but I just now discovered that it was the newly constructed Quezon City hall.  The convention leadership details were already there, so I just created a new heading to highlight them. I can't think of other events within the convention, unless I track down which of the members participated in the post-Martial law gangup that finished the final draft, or I start delving into partisan side-meetings (but there aren't any references for those on the Pro-Marcos side so that'd introduce a balance problem.)  Perhaps you might have further suggestions? - Alternativity (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, could you advise on whether the quality rating should be changed? I wasn't really planning to upgrade per se, but I think this is past its original "start" class. Modestly I'd upgrade it to a C Class, but perhaps it qualifies as a B? - Alternativity (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article looks better now and I suspect I'm close to being satisfied with the requirements. As for the rating, at the very least it's C, though for B-class, I think ratings depend on the WikiProject consensus (i.e. an outside review). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the estimate. I'm pretty strongly a Eventualist and Incrementalist, both in practice and by persuasion, so I don't do article upgrading via cleanup very often. hehe. That's why all the articles I propose are new ones. Anyway, I'll upgrade the banner to C class from start now. - Alternativity (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's already October 30, are you done? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think so. I'm sure it'll get further improvements over time, as all Wiki articles do. But for this set of edits, I think I'm pretty happy with the article already and don't really want to change it much more. Maybe if a new book on the topic comes out. Anyway. If this DYK doesn't work out I think I should move on to focusing on other topics. - Alternativity (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I still feel strongly that there's nothing on the article that are "circumstances surrounding" the convention, though. The events are the events, and they all happened to/in the convention as a historical event. - Alternativity (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * One last comment : Quezon City Hall does have an article so it might be a good idea to fix the link to that. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Link fixed. :D Although I also created a redirect at Quezon City hall (small h), for good measure. - Alternativity (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thanks for the hard work Alternativity. I don't really see any more outstanding issues; as such, this should now be good to go. Of the three hooks, my preference is the original. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this, and first copyedited the whole article to remove typos. I capitalized Constitution and Constitutional Convention, although these terms are usually not capitalized. I notice that you copied text from two other articles to make this one. While the length of this article seems long enough for a 5x expansion of copied text per Rule A5, it seems to me that Philippine Constitutional Convention election, 1970 is now a carbon copy of this article. Is the 1970 article even necessary? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm pretty conflicted about that. From a notability perspective, both the election and the convention per se are of historical significance, although of course the convention itself is more so. I think the election article was created by people who were creating pages election-by-election, since there are also articles on the constitutional ammendments referenda which came after the 73 constitution. Deleting the election article would leave a massive hole in the coverage of Philippine elections. So if we need to take action (that's an important if), I think it'd have to be to address the overlap. :S Suggestions would be welcome? Oh, and also, I've just realized that November 18 (Manila Time) is the 2nd anniversary of the Burial of Ferdinand Marcos, which would be an interesting date to post this... is it too late to request for a specific date? - Alternativity (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably too late to request that date due to the six-week requirement. While IAR exists, the fact that this was nominated back in August means it was always going to be off the table. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to request the date, given how soon in the future it is. The big question is whether everything will be wrapped up in time for a November 18 placement, given that it's almost November 11 (and well into November 11 in the Philippines). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg The two paragraphs lifted from Philippine Constitutional Convention election, 1970 do not affect the character count for this article, which is certainly more than 5x the length of the copied content. I am restoring the tick per Narutolovehinata5's review and placing this in the queue for November 18. However, I strongly suggest going to AFD with the election article. There's no point in breaking up the different elements of the convention article when the convention article covers everything nicely. Yoninah (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)