Talk:Manila

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Manila has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Southeast Asia (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated GA-Class)
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Proposal: Adding, "Disasters and Recovery" section to the article.[edit]

Did you know that Manila was totally destroyed by 7 fires, 5 Earthquakes, 4 wars, 10 battles and constant flooding in the course of it's history? Yet, despite the constant challenges and periodic destruction of the city, it always manages to rise up again and be reconstructed. I think this feature of resiliency within the city of Manila is uniquely its own (The only city comparable to it in resiliency is Tokyo which also suffers the same Earthquake and flood tendency and Jerusalem which also suffers the same fate as Manila in being the center of many wars and battles) and this feature is important enough that it should be a subsection within this article so that people could at least be informed about the many many times Manila has fallen yet has always managed to rise again.

I would like to know your opinions concerning this matter since, this feature is at the heart of many Manileños.

Truly Yours

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not at all unique. Cities all around the world suffer from natural disasters and wars, and they tend to stay there. In addition, you'd need a WP:Reliable source to add a sentence to this article, let alone an entire section. CMD (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, it may not be all-that unique but if you realize it, the quantity and magnitude is what sets it apart. Sure, places like Visivius in Italy or San Francisco in the USA also get struck by earthquakes but not as much as Manila which is stuck in the fault-lines of the Pacific ring of fire. There has been no less than 5 Earthquakes that destroyed it in the 20th century alone. (I did not mention the earthquakes that destroyed it from the 16th to 19th centuries that's why the Philippines has the architectural style called Earthquake Baroque. Likewise the city has been systematically emasculated around 3 times: 1st when the Spaniards invaded wherein not a single structure was left of Selurong: 2nd, when the British invaded and again, not a single structure was left behind and 3rd, during World War II when the Japs invaded and not a single structure from the prewar era was left unscathed. Add to this, the constant fires and perrenial floods (at least 3 per year) that constantly batter Manila. Yet through all these, Manila survives. Although, I am conceding to the fact that Natural Disasters and Wars are not unique to Manila but what is unique is the frequency and intensity of the said natural disasters and wars. As for sources, I already have 3 sources lined up:
1) (Fires and Quakes in the Construction of Old Manila: By Greg Bankoff)
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/pdf/History-Bankoff-fire2.pdf
2) (Vulnerability and Flooding in Metro Manila: University of Auckland)
http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/31/IIASN31_11.pdf
3) (The Battle of Manila: Combat Studies Institute Fort Leavensworth Kansas)
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a165904.pdf
These are mainly university papers but there are also hundreds of newspaper articles and websites detailing the 10 Wars fought over Manila, the dozens of Earthquakes and Fires as well as the recent flooding. Obviously, information about this is quite copious. Furthermore, the eminent Playwright-Historian, Nick Joaqin mentioned the great Manila fires, floods, earthquakes and wars in his "Manila: City of Our Affections" whereas, in this article, there is not a single mention of these anywhere. And that is a great disservice. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Thank You.
Truly Yours
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
None of those sources say Manila is special or unique. Fault lines occur all over the world, as do floods and fires. That Manila retains a vast number of slums and other areas susceptible to large amounts of damage is not a reflection on some special attribute of resiliency. Anything titled "Manila: City of Our Affections" should be treated with at least a bit a skepticism. A sources sentence about the frequency of flooding, or of earthquakes, would be useful if sourced, but it should not be used to try and support anything it doesn't actually say. 11:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. How about, instead of naming the sub-section: "Resiliency", let's term it "Disasters and Recovery". Considering that inserting the 20+ Earthquakes, 10+ fires, reoccurring floods and 9 Battles that happened in Manila and reshaped the city's urban landscape can disrupt the flow of the narration in the history-section (Manila's history is so complex therefore it can't be like San Francisco [Where the great fires and earthquakes can be placed in their history section [1] or like that of Tokyo [2] where the great Kanto Earthquake can be mentioned because their history is not as complex) Therefore, this subsection is necessary. As for the sources for the frequency of flooding and earthquakes: there are tons more out there, I don't need to cite them here because its so copious. A cursory Google-search will reveal hundreds of studies about those and any one can be cited for it. Nevertheless, I continue to stress the necessity of having this subsection since it explains why such an old city as Manila, established in the 13th Century, 3 centuries earlier than New York which was established on 1624, but lacks historic architecture (due to repeating natural and man-made disasters) Furthermore, it explains why urban planning in Manila is so Byzantine.
Truly Yours
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Manila's history is no more complex than any other city. It's also much younger that many of the wor'd's cities. As for the lack of historic architecture, that's quite typical of many East Asian cities that have bulldozed the past in the strive for industrialisation (whether that's positive or negative of course depends on opinion). A study on a single flood is not a source for frequency of floods. Please see WP:SYNTH. CMD (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Lol no, if you compare Manila's history section with that of Tokyo, New York, London, Taipei, Dublin or Johannesburg: you have to objectively admit that these cities have qualitatively varying degrees of historical complexity and since according to you, "Manila's history is no more complex than any other city", Manila which has been contested by seven nations and has changed religion four times; "is no more complex" than the industrial city of Kobe or the mining city of Perth. A notion that is not only false, but also absurd. Furthermore, Manila may be younger than most cities that arose from the Europe, Africa and Asia but it is older than most cities that arose from the Americas and Australia. A city's youth is relative to it's hemisphere.
And I regret to inform you over the ignorance of your statement: "As for the lack of historic architecture, that's quite typical of many East Asian cities that have bulldozed the past in the strive for industrialization" because the fact is, the lack of historic architecture in Manila is not due to bulldozing but due to systemic dismantling by the Japanese forces during World War 2: (Here's the direct quote) "During the battle in Manila, over 100,000 Filipino men, women and children died from February 3 to March 3, 1945. At the end of World War II, virtually all of the structures in Intramuros (The historical district) were destroyed, with only the damaged Church of San Agustin still standing" SOURCE: [1]
As for the floods, here's a source detailing the floods which have destroyed the city, http://www.japanfocus.org/-James_F_-Warren/4018, Typhoons: "Meding, Yoling, Gloring, Norming, Didang, Yaning, June and Ike" and this list is still incomplete as it only lists the floods from the 1970-1980s, the floods from before the 1970s and from the 1990s up to the present are not even mentioned.
Now that I have educated you over the common misconceptions with the city of Manila, I respectfully want to write this subsection now, as it has already been 4 days since I wrote this discussion in this talk-page and up to now, all our topics merely revolve around the non-essentials of the matter: i.e. "sources" or "personal interpretations", whereas the fact still remains that Manila is a disaster prone area (Both in man-made and natural) and that several academic works accede to this fact [I supplied you guys with only 5 out of the hundreds of works available in a cursory Google search of this topic] but this wiki article has no mention of it. This, despite the NECESSARY nature of this sub-section. (Disasters affect the everyday life of the Manila resident and has irreversibly shaped the course of the city). Still, despite the NECESSARY nature of this section, I'm afraid that if I just talk and talk about the merits of this and that, then this project will never get off the ground. So I ask that I proceed to write this section now and if there be any objections or constructive criticisms over this matter, then they are welcomed to edit that "Disasters and recovery" section according to what they deem fit and good, as long as it is in the best interests of our community.
Truly Yours...
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There's plenty of ancient cities in East and Southeast Asia, if you want to start comparing histories. As for the history of Intramuros, I'm quite aware of it. I'll note that quote doesn't support "systematic dismantling". However, there's more to Manila than Intramuros. The reason old cities in other areas have their old buildings is in many cases restoration. The parthenon has been rebuilt after being destroyed, for example. Again, I have supported the idea of mentioning the frequency of floodings and earthquakes. However, there's no evidence presented that Manila's recovery has been in any way special or unique. Please read WP:Consensus. CMD (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok fine, I concede that Manila is not unique in having experienced wars and natural disasters. And I am willing to compromise. I will just state the bare essentials, wherein Manila has been frequently visited by natural and man-made disasters and then, list the major disasters that have befallen the city and Manila's response to it. Furthermore, the section shall have no mention over Manila's uniqueness or any allusions to Manila's "special resiliency" and shall merely mention the BARE FACTS: i.e the battles, earthquakes and floods that have historically destroyed the city. This, without violating the neutral POV and having a streamlined narration. Is this an agreeable compromise with you?

Truly Yours

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be better to separate the various types of destruction; wars, floods, earthquakes, or perhaps just wars vs natural disasters. What you suggest sounds reasonable, and as you say above, once it's written we can edit it further. CMD (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Then lets get to work now.Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok I finished it, what do you think about the section? I followed your advice and I made separate areas for wars, floods and earthquakes.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess there are no complaints to me about the Disasters and Recovery section in this article, now. Unto my next addition...

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the War section is redundant, and let us reduce the scope just to the City of Manila itself as much as possible.

PH 0447 (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wars section[edit]

This should go. There's a tiny bit in the first para that can be added to the main history section, but the rest is just duplicating earlier material (and what is a "reasonable amount of casualties"?). Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

National symbol[edit]

Is it worth mentioning here one senators bill to have Manila declared a national symbol? It doesn't seem to hold any real importance, it's the capital either way. CMD (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --121.54.54.46 (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Where Manila Got its Name[edit]

Manila comes from the word Maynila which so much sounds like chinese word Mai is to buy ni is you and la is an expression used by overseas chinese like in Singapore.Would you buy lah or where are you going lah. so this could be the nearest truth about Manila as center of buying and commerce for early chinese.Mai ni lah or ni mai lah.--121.54.58.136 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Massacre of 1603 - questions[edit]

Hi, it would be very interesting to have a good and reliable text about the massacre of 1603 where more than 20,000 Chinese were allegedly slaughtered by the Spaniards. There are different indications in the Internet claiming that

  • there was a rebellion of the Chinese

(Payer: http://www.payer.de/hbiweltweit/weltw43.html)

or

  • there was a visit of Ming Mandarins and the Spaniards only reacted with fear and aggression.

(a forum: http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/topic/1393-massacre-and-slaughter-of-the-overseas-chinese/)

So, what is right? Are there sources? How reliable are they? Was there a Chinese war ship? Were the Ming Mandarins legally on the Philippines or not? Was there one single Chinese shot? How the dead bodies were buried? This would be interesting.

Michael Palomino, July 12, 2014

213.196.219.102 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Quezon III, Manuel L. (2007-02-07). "The Warsaw of Asia: How Manila was Flattened in WWII". Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Arab News Online (archive.arabnews.com). Opinion. Archived from the original on 2010-08-07. Retrieved 2010-08-07.