Talk:People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler

Discussion on blurb for In the News on the Main Page

 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

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)

@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)

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.
@Truflip99: Why bother to inform a "bad faith" editor of your plans? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) @Truflip99: What I mean by this is, if you're not going to apologize for assuming bad faith, don't contact me anymore. I will leave this page to you, Itsquietuptown, Serial Number 54129, Polo, Kaldari, et cetera, to work out the text of this article. I further request a voluntary two way interaction ban, because I have absolutely no interest in ever working with an editor who assumes bad faith after one revert without apology. Lastly, I ping Sky Harbor, who has experience with spurious use of NPOV policy on the Marcos articles, as he might be interested in what's going on here. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC) I wasn't notifying you directly... I was logging my edits to maintain the validity of the POV tag like you indicated I should do. I would have pinged you otherwise per your signature. I also maintain my assumption on your edits, because your edits in the article and your initial responses to me in this talk page spoke loudly on their own. I never said the assumption extended to you as an editor, and IMO, the phrase isn't meant to be personal. I never said all your edits on this website have been in bad faith. To be clear, my intent was to prevent further misinformation from this article after seeing a rather impressive effort to paint a one-sided picture of the topic for everyone who visits the WP front page to see. But don't get me wrong -- As a close relative of another Rappler journalist (who I fear for atm), I truly believe you aren't wrong in your assumption of what's happening. However, a WP article just isn't the medium to convey that assumption. --truflip99 (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC) @Truflip99: None of my edits to this website have been in bad faith. Not one. Certainly not this article. You stopped assuming good faith after a single edit of mine. You continue to be uncivil towards me. I opened a WP:3O request because I would like someone uninvolved to take a look at your behavior. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Psiĥedelisto, I must regretfully decline that request as regards WP:3O itself: as the first sentence of WP:3O makes clear, it is for content and sourcing issues, not interpersonal conflicts or behavioural policy determinations. That is more the province of WP:ANI and other dedicated noticeboards reserved specifically for those purposes, though I am by no means suggesting you should go there at this juncture. Rather, I would suggest you consider the WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Alternatively, I would be willing to WP:MEDIATE the matter informally, though I must be clear with you both that my approach would be geared towards trying to get you both to consider the matter addressed (if that is possible, it isn't always) rather than to anoint a winner. If you think I can be of assistance in that way, I am happy to help, but I am not qualified under our project's processes to make a formal determination as to whether someone broke a behavioural policy. For that matter, neither can DRN. That needs community vetting at an appropriate space or at least the involvement of a concerned administrator. Those options are available to you if you want that level of examination, but you should always remember that every party's bheaviour is examined as a matter of course in those contexts. Personally, I would suggest one of the low-stakes routes first. :) But you'll have to make your own determination. Snow let's rap 11:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC) @Snow Rise: I would be happy to allow you to mediate. I don't mind discussing any issues Truflip99 or any other editor brings up. Indeed, every concrete substantive issue with the text I've become aware of via this talk page or via edit summaries, I've discussed here. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 11:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Great! I hope I can get you guys on the same page (or as close to it as possible)--let's just enter a brief holding pattern while we wait to hear if Truflip99 is in agreement. Snow let's rap 12:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC) @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) Truflip, I wonder if perhaps Psiĥedelisto would be satisfied merely by hearing that you accept at this juncture that the edit in question was made with good intentions and not for the intentional purpose of frustrating process or otherwise acting outside of the normal flow consensus building. The crux of the disagreement between you two (pertaining to this one comment in the edit summary, not the larger editorial questions), might come down as much to semantics as your intention. It seems to me that when you said "bad faith" you were trying to emphasize that you felt the removal of the tag was premature and inappropriate, and that it frustrated the discussion process before you felt the issues had been resolved. You may also have meant to suggest that at some level Psiĥedelisto was (or at least should have been) aware that they were taking this action knowing it wasn't strictly speaking in the spirit of constructive consensus building, although I am not prepared to say that was your intention: I am only noting that is a possible read that I think the other party might reasonably take from that wording. I won't speak as to the underlying question of whether the tag removal was proper, nor attempt to speculate on precisely what you meant when you used "bad faith" in your response. It suffices to say that Psiĥedelisto seems to have taken the comment to suggest they were consciously acting in bad faith. They clearly want you to admit that it was an inappropriate way to classify their comment at the time, and that you should have leaned a little more into WP:AGF and been a bit more careful with how you classified their edit. It simultaneously seems to be the case that you don't want to concede that your comment was, at the time, hasty or uncharitable to their motives. And although you have clarified that you didn't mean to imply a pervasive strategy or mindset towards a bad-faith objective, that seems to fall short of the recognition that Psiĥedelisto wants as to the one particular comment in the edit summary. So my suggestion is that maybe there is a half-step here that will resolve this with relatively little in the way of perceived insult moving forward: perhaps (without saying one way or the other whether the "bad faith" comment was appropriate in the context in which you made it) you could reassure Psiĥedelisto that, if only from how bothered they were by the comment, you recognize that they did not intend to act unreasonably and outside of process. After-all, Psiĥedelisto has suggested they are done with involvement in the underlying issue and that at this juncture their main concern was that the character of their contributions was misrepresented. And it is indeed a fact that the "bad faith" phrasing, because of the manner in which it is utilized in many of our core policies and in discussion of the community's values, carries a lot of weight here and tends to impute an unfavourable//WP:NOTHERE sentiment. For what it's worth, I do think the average editor is likely to feel their nose has been tweaked a little bit on seeing that phrase applied to them, even if thereafter they were told that it was not meant to be a general indictment against their conduct as an editor. So I'm curious if you, Truflip, would be willing to say at least as much as that you can see now that Psiĥedelisto was probably not trying to thwart your efforts inappropriately, however things might have appeared to you at the moment that you made the comment. Likewise, Psiĥedelisto, I wonder if you could comment as to whether this would suffice to make you feel that the good faith intention behind your actions had been recognized? In other words, is it feasible in both your minds to just skip over the question of whether the use of that phrase at that moment was appropriate/hasty and simply establish that in the present moment, both of you respect the other as probably having gone into that cluster of edits with the best of intentions? Snow let's rap 03:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Thank you Snow Rise for taking the time. On further reflection, you are indeed correct about the reasons for my strong reaction. Typically, it seems to me that accusations of bad faith are usually the domain of WP:AN/I and to a lesser extent WP:DRN. I was quite honestly shocked to see that kind of accusation after one revert. After all, tags being removed and replaced happens all the time, indeed, I've been in Truflip99's position of restoring a tag another editor removed in my view prematurely, but I wouldn't ever write "bad faith" into an WP:ES or talk page unless my next step was going to be AN/I. I don't find 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 very convincing, and I'd say if we're going to continue to collaborate without mediation or an WP:IBAN, "bad faith" at minimum needs to be removed from both of our vocabularies unless an AN/I or DRN case is imminent. And, indeed, such words shouldn't even appear in article talk pages or edit summaries per WP:FOC. That's what the Wikipedia talk/User talk namespaces are for. I am of course sympathetic to any possible language barriers here, and I would find it extremely unfortunate to need to disengage totally from a native of my preferred topic area (Philippines), simply because there aren't many native Filipinos I can ask stuff to due to WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. So, in sum, if we both agree to be WP:CIVIL and refrain especially from using the words "bad faith" in future, given how Wikipedia's unique culture makes those words stronger than they would be in the off-wiki world, I'm happy to consider this conduct dispute closed. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 11:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Well, while I am not in a position to speak for truflip99, if I had to guess, I would say they probably already recognize that using that term with you would be particularly non-constructive at this juncture, and based on their comments above, I would also surmise that they tend to think of themselves as someone who generally tries to treat others civilly. I understand and can sympathize with what you say regarding why you would not use that particular term outside of a given context. Indeed, I would go further and say that I prefer not to comment on what I perceive to be the motive of another editor in any context, if I think it can be at all avoided; I mean I can't say with certainty that I've never done it concerning some problematic actor in some context, but it just very much is something foreign to my process as a general rule: I prefer to focus on content or policy, and even in a behavioural review process, would rather focus on what the parties have done rather than what their likely drivers were. However, that said, this may just be a part of our particular ideolect in the context of this project. Because while I do not disagree with really any individual point you make or policy you cite above, I also know that it's not really unheard of that someone might use it at juncture well, well before ANI. And to play devil's advocate for truflip further, edit summaries are somewhat constrained contexts to be expressing things, often with multiple competing elements to be included, and often nuance gets lost. I'm not saying I fully support his use of that term in that context, but it's also a ways down the list of things I've seen said in edit summaries when things get a little intense. On a percentile scale that runs from "I do not think this edit was constructive." (1%) to "You pigf***er, I will find you and make you eat your keyboard!!!", we can safely put "bad faith" in the early tweens at most. I applaud you for your own standards, of course, but I would still urge you to consider that truflip probably did not intend to cause as much insult as was given. Snow let's rap 13:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC) BTW, I feel the need to explain this little detail about the scale: "pigf***er" is only about 96%. I can't show you 100% because of multiple policy constraints and basic decency, but I've nevertheless seen it in an edit summary! Snow let's rap 13:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC) On an entirely incidental sidenote, our comments have gone a little long here and normally I would invite you two to my talk page to hopefully resolve the matter, but I'm hopeful we are already pretty close to that juncture, so I will instead note here for anyone concerned about the length of this subtopic that I will hat the discussion once it is clear that the entire matter has been addressed to everyone's satisfaction, so that it does not inflate the talk page length until the thread is archived. Snow let's rap 13:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC) So I'm curious if you, Truflip, would be willing to say at least as much as that you can see now that Psiĥedelisto was probably not trying to thwart your efforts inappropriately, however things might have appeared to you at the moment that you made the comment. -- This is correct. This is why I said he may not agree with my presumption at the time and I was and am totally fine with that. I have since been convinced that he may not have been consciously trying to create an anti-PH government article, as he has fully accepted the POV changes that have been made. If the term "bad faith" is the cause of this misunderstanding, then I'd be happy not to use it anymore. --truflip99 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC) @Truflip99 and Snow Rise: I'm satisfied with this answer, no IBAN is necessary. Feel free to hat this at your leisure Snow Rise. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Excellent, thank you both--in the current climate and even on the contemporary project, it is nice to find examples of people looking for a reason to de-escalate, rather than the unfortunately all-to-common urge to go to the mat dogmatically. Either of you is free to revert me if you feel the need, but I'll hat the discussion momentarily, assuming from the previous two comments that you are both more or less satisfied that your thoughts regarding the edit summary have been received and understood. Happy editing! Snow let's rap 21:52, 26 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

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)