Talk:Freedom of religion in the Philippines

message: Around 15 August, I started reorganizing the footnotes using <ref> templates.  I quickly ran into problems matching up citations in the article to footnotes.  After leaving the reorganization partially done for a week or so, I went ahead and completed it using my best guess at which cites went with what footnotes.  I have no doubt mismatched some of these, but I have also gotten most of the grunt work done.  With the grunt work out of the way, correcting my mismatches should be easy for someone who is familiar with the reference material.
I  flagged one point where I could not match up a cite with any of the footnotes.
I have left one footnote for which I could identify no references in the References section standing alone at the end of the footnotes list.
-- Boracay Bill 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision of cites/footnotes/references

message: I hope this will be a good reference(?)--Jondel 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding SC decision was great, so made it the lead section. ;) Merged the content of the two articles into this article. Try to fix the other sections soon. :)--Noypi380 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Placed a globalize tag. Article sounds like it expects the reader to be knowledgable of local events. Constant use of the term "separation of church and state", (should not be applied any more after post-spanish times) makes it outdated and archaic in a secular country with a large muslim minority. --Noypi380 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tag for a while, boracay bill finished the references section, pending corrections. :) --Noypi380 07:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Separation of church and state in the Philippines]]

message: I am not in favour of this name change at all (even after the fact). "Separation of Church and State" is a clear, historic and easily referenced title. We're not far from the Cardinal Sin led charge on the Marcos government. The Arroyo government is constantly defending the (wait for it....) "separation of church and state" (look at the current disputes on birth control? Look at Filipino newspapers)  The new article name looks waffly and  politically correct, and I do not support the change made. Most scholarly work refers to  "separation of Church and State" as an internationally debated issue. Where was the reasoning for this apparently retrograde change? I see  Noypi380 giving a politically correct reason, but frankly, this doesn't make sense to me. It's idiosyncratic from my point of view- or please- show me credible references where I can read up on this to see reasons for your point of view. In national media, we contstantly refer to "separation of church and state"; and "Status of religious freedom" does not refer to what we are talking about. This new title (which I do not support) is more relevant for China or Iran....Cor Unum 09:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are discussions of SOC&S in the Philippines, but this is an international collaborative encyclopedia project, and other cultures must be able to understand and edit the text too, not just Filipinos in the Philippines. The title today is made to satisfy the following. First, it satifies wikipedia's neutrality policy for the sake of the Filipino Muslims. (a contributor mentioned that, see history page, that SOC&S is biased for Christians) Second, it satisfies Wikipedia's effort to write articles that have a worldwide view, so that an international audience may understand the article better, and even edit it themselves. The Iranians and Chinese you mentioned can edit too and the title is easier for them to understand. (I'm sorry to say that there is a systemic bias caused by Filipino contributors for Philippine related articles, but that is slowly eroding thanks to contributors writing from abroad) Finally, this article joins the magnificent Freedom of Religion series of articles. I doubt that you saw that. :) --Noypi380 15:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are you sure about this article name change? Really?

message: Read you response. Exactly, the name change is politically correct as you explain, and worse, has weakened the article beacaue it won't be found. The article rename is simple woeful and will ensure it doesn't get many hits. But if that is what is desired, at least people looking for sensible information on the status of "separation fo church and state" in the Philippines won't look at (and certainly won't be able to find by specific search) the article bizarrely called "religious Freedom" on wiki. I'm not sure this is what you want? In my opinion, this is the effect this renaming will have. You entirely miss my point about China and Iran as contrasts. These are areas where the title the article now has (actually the same as their own State ideologies) is really comic to specialists who know anything about their constitutions which guarantee "freedom of religion" (not). By the way, you imply I am Philippino, and you are not correct. While I largely agree with your judgment on the tendency to bias in Philippino articles, you are wrong about where I come from. I have visited the Philippines, but am an Australian of Causasian background. My speciifc academic qualifications are in Theology and Philosophy, my work is the secular [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] as a religion specialist. This name change for the article is retrograde. My point is that people OUTSIDE the Philippines will not look at this article because its new name makes no proper sense. It is not relevant to international understandings of the debate about what is generally known as "separation of church and state". This is what Americans, Australians, the British, Canadians, Indians, the Irish (just in the English speaking world) call it. The equivalent stands in other European languages as well. I really think you should reconsider this. The point is not to make the article obscure and hard to find after being politically correct so as to avoid offending a muslim minority by using the word "church". They have heard it before. Really, they have. They don't need to be patronised.  If you really HAVE TO - call the article "separation of Religion and State" - but even that will not be very searchable online. "Separation of church and State" is the sensible and historic title- particularly in nations like the Philippines where there is a Christian majority.
:The constitution of the Philippines guarantees Freedom of religion clearly. Did you also see the infobox in the bottom of the article? :) --Noypi380 13:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, if an article is renamed, the original name doesn't get deleted, it redirects here, and it shows up in searches. Question though, how do other countries name their religion freedom articles? --Howard the Duck 15:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From some googling, it looks to me as if "Status of religious freedom in ..." is favored.  See ,, , etc. -- Boracay Bill 04:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, given that, I reverted the article back to the one with a history section minus the NPOV dispute tag. If anyone has POV issues, just neutralize the wording of the text straight at once, for obvious reasons.:) --Noypi380 12:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: Look at the Papal Nuncio being prominent in the Presidential palace, why is there a Catholic chapel inside the presidential palace. Why other religions beside Roman Catholicism need to be registered to the government's SEC while religious groups like El Saddai of Mr. Velarde is not registered because it was Catholic. The Philippines is a country enslaved by this foreign religion slandering hijacking the constitution.Bold text  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no separation of church and state in the Philippines. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Freedom of religion in the 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/20070315200404/http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_p_02_1651.htm to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/am_p_02_1651.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901234453/http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.M.%20No.%20P-02-1651.htm to http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/A.M.%20No.%20P-02-1651.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified