Talk:Sovereignty of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated Start-class, Low-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Initial stub[edit]

The startup stub for this article grew out of discussion at Talk:Philippine–American War#First Philippine Republic: Insurgent?. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your choice of definition, the constitutive theory of statehood, should be explained. The article on Sovereignty chooses the Treaty of Westphalia as a starting off point for example. Why not that? Another thing to note: at the time there were far fewer other states that could give the kind of recognition that theory looks for. Is today's Taiwan not an insurgent state by your definition only because some countries in Africa and some Pacific islands recognize it? If taking the theoretical case that should all current supporters drop their recognition, all other things being equal, should Taiwan even if in full control of its territory be considered insurgent?
Was Napoleonic France an insurgency? It came to be at the start of the 19th century so I wonder how this theory that was developed later would be applied. How about Bolshevik Russia?
Also as an American do you consider the United Nations as having the right or even the duty to constrain the United States when it invaded the sovereign state of Iraq? What does "recognition" mean? Only a piece of paper? Or a commitment backed by action? Lambanog (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on international law, and I welcome correction of any shortcomings in this article by persons more knowledgeable in this area than myself. I looked at the Westphalian sovereignty and the Peace of Westphalia articles and had the thought that they seemed very euro-centric. I thought I had gotten the idea that the constitutive theory of statehood was appropriate to the late 19th century timeframe of the events surrounding the end of the Spanish-American War from its WP article, but I don't see that in there on a quick look back. I may have gotten that from this source, a supporting cite of which I have now added to the article..
The other Sovereignty of ... articles (Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands) deffer from this one in that those articles deal with sovereignty disputes between governments for which clear and supportable descriptions exist, while this article deals with differing opinions about Philippine sovereignty transitions around the end of the Spanish-American War about which I have not been able to find many clear assertions re claims of sovereignty by or on behalf of the various entities involved except for the U.S. and Spain (an exception to that is the assertion that the Katipunan became an "open de facto government" on 24 August 1896, which I mentioned in the article along with the supporting cites I had seen.)
Remember WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."). The topic of the article addresses a point which has often been contentious in Philippines-focused WP articles. I think that topic deserves more visibility and deserves treatment over a longer timeframe and in greater depth than it has been receiving in edit summaries and talk page discussions—hence this article. This article should not argue a Wikipedia position re Philippine sovereignty status transitions. This article should describe the sovereignty status transition situation of the Philippines, citing relevant reliable supporting sources. The initial stub was intended as a starting point towards that end.
In this edit, which lacks an edit summary, you placed two {{NPOV}} tags in this article, one at the head and the other in the Sovereignty section. I've added a {{main}} tag and some additional introductory text to that section, but I infer that your feelings re NPOV involve the final two sentences of the section. Please suggest improvements here or be bold and edit improvements into the article yourself.
You ask whether I consider Napoleonic France and/or Bolshevik Russia insurgencies. Let me answer different questions instead:
Yes—one which ultimately succeeded, resulting in the Treaty of Paris (1783) in which Britain, former holder of sovereignty over the U.S., recognized U.S. independence.
No. It began the insurgency known as the American Revolution.
  • Was the government established by the Articles of Confederation the legitimate government of a sovereign state when established?
No. It was an insurgent government in revolution against British rule. It was legitimized by the Treaty of Paris (1783).
  • If the American Revolution had failed, would that government ever have been legitimate or ever have held sovereignty?
No.
  • Was the successor government established by the U.S. Constitution a legitimate government when established?
Yes—It was established subsequent to the Treaty of Paris (1783).
Re your questions beginning "As an American, ...", I don't see how those questions relate to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I presume you are American, I would say that can be grounds to suspect possible bias in regards to the creation of this article in particular. Of course we all have our biases but it would be beneficial for all concerned in the discussion to be aware of the degree of that bias. The questions I asked you contain related ideas, your reluctance to answer them gives an indication to some degree of your interest in this topic and how narrowly or broadly you are approaching it. Citing the Philippine Supreme Court in support of your position but not pointing out that this was a Philippine Supreme Court during the American Period does not show balance. Nor does inferring the statement made supports the idea of no Philippine sovereignty at the time. If the Nuremberg trials had cited the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact it still would not mean that the Nuremberg Court supported the document.
You cite the Treaty of Paris (1783) as legitimating the sovereignty of the United States. So a piece of paper is enough? Very well, Diosdado Macapagal's presidential proclamation of 1962 in which Philippine Independence as dated June 12, 1898 is recognized on behalf of the sovereign state of the Republic of the Philippines pretty much recognizes the sovereignty of the First Malolos Republic as well and Emilio Aguinaldo as the first president. Happy? 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we all have our biases. I strive here to create a balanced article. I invite you to work with me towards that end.
My days in history classes are several decades in the past; I don't recall the details surrounding the establishment of Napoleonic France and Bolshevik Russia and didn't want to take the time to research them, so I asked and answered questions which I could do more readily and which I thought spoke to your points at least as directly as answering the other questions would have. I still don't see the relevance of your "As an American ..." questions to this article, and want to avoid defucusing this discussion with a sidebar about about the invasion of Iraq.
I took some pains in the article to explain that the Philippine Supreme Court is a court which had its origins in legislation crafted by the Taft Commission; please re-read the initial paragraph of the "Philippine Supreme Court statements regarding sovereignty" section of the article. I solicit your contributions towards improving that section and/or other sections of the article. I don't understand your reasoning in saying that my inferring that a statement in a Philippine Supreme Court decision that, "By the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the United States." does not support the idea of no Philippine sovereignty at the time. I don't know whether or not any testimony in the Nuremberg Trials cited the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and don't see how that would relate to this article.
You ask if a piece of paper is enough. Again, I'm not an expert on the international law of sovereignty, but my understanding is that if the piece of paper in question is an agreement between sovereign states regarding cessation of territory from one state which holds sovereignty over the territory in question to another sovereign state, then that piece of paper very likely is enough.
You assert that Diosdado Macapagal's presidential proclamation of 1962 in which Philippine Independence as dated June 12, 1898 is recognized on behalf of the sovereign state of the Republic of the Philippines pretty much recognizes the sovereignty of the First Malolos Republic as well and Emilio Aguinaldo as the first president. The operative paragraph of that proclamation reads,

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL, President of the Philippines by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 30 of the Revised Administrative Code, do hereby declare Tuesday, June 12, 1962, as a special public holiday throughout the Philippines in commemoration of our people's declaration of their inherent and inalienable right to freedom and independence.[1]

As I read that, declares a one-time public holiday on June 12, 1962; no more, no less. I thank you for reminding me of that, and I am aware that on August 4, 1964, RA4166 changed the date of the Independence day holiday from July 4 to June 12 (declaring July 4 as Philippine Republic Day). In the interest of giving this due weight, I will add info about that to the article. Also, having taken a quick look back at the Public holidays in the Philippines article, it strikes me that this article might not accurately reflect the sources I've just mentioned, and I'll probably edit sections of that article to bring them into conformance with info in those sources.
Again, I invite you to join me in working towards improving this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I have no interest in writing an article which seems to have been created as little more than a justification for the United States actions during the Philippine American War. There are many other perspectives that could be included and which are more notable to this specific case than just the mere ceding of territory between two countries. For example there is no mention of this being a potentially seminal first in Asia case of a European imperial power being overthrown. There is no comment on how the international diplomacy of the time was basically a clubby group of largely European imperial powers that had a vested interest in suppressing the populations of their colonies. There is no talk of domino theory. I would say that is the main point of notability of an article on the subject. If the article remains as it is, it is little more than propaganda and advocacy and should be merged elsewhere or deleted forthwith. Lambanog (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


Nov 2009 NPOV tags[edit]

If there still NPOV issues, please discuss. If no issues come up and the {{NPOV}} tags persist more than a few days, I'll remove the tags. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles titled "Sovereignty of __insert country__" are rare and generally non-standard. If there are reasons to have such an article, going by the content of other such articles I would note there are a variety of other sovereignty related issues that could reasonably be expected to be the main subject of this article such as the dispute over the Kalayaan Islands, claims on Sabah via the Sultanate of Sulu, the ARMM, disputes with Communist and Muslim rebels, and the extent of RP control in Southern Mindanao. I would therefore submit that going by the content of this article it is inaccurately named. Because of its narrow point of view, the content probably belongs more accurately in the "Philippine-American War" article, "American Empire", or "Overseas expansion of the United States" or perhaps a newly created article along the lines of "United States Justifications for Military Intervention". Also see my comments in preceding section above. I will therefore add a NPOV tag regarding title and subject matter and recommend a merge to a more relevant article. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Good point re international disputes over sovereignty and changes to the extent of the territory. If nobody else adds a new section to the article with info on this, I'll try to get around to it. One item in addition of those you mentioned would be the Island of Palmas Case, which removed an island which had been ceded by Spain to the U.S. from U.S. sovereignty and awarded it to Holland (hence, it is now Indonesian instead of Filipino). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I simply get the feeling the article is a regurgitation of information explored in more detail in other articles. It is by and large redundant. Please explain the value of this article and why it should not be deleted. Lambanog (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As noted above, this article grew out of discussions regarding the addition or removal of the word insurgent to describe a characteristic of the First Philippine Republic. I have noted and been involved in similar issues in other Philippines-related articles, and note conflicts between articles regarding this issue—multiple times in some articles—e.g.:
No doubt other cases exist. This indicates that one of or more of several things must be true:
  • possibly, different reliable sources assert different positions re the Philippine sovereignty transitions (I have not found this to be the case, but I have not examined all possibly relevant sources. If reliable sources turn up asserting positions contrary to the info in this article, info about that should be added to this article, citing those sources.);
  • possibly, there is a lack of understanding re Philippine sovereignty transitions on the part of some editors (and also, no doubt, on the part of some general readers using WP as a source of information);
  • possibly, there is good understanding re Philippine sovereignty transitions by most editors, but POV issues involving some editors lead them to vandalize articles involving the Philippines to reflect their POV view rather than the view which reliable sources would support (correcting such cases tends to lead to edit wars, and dispute resolution is difficult due to the lack of a single source where a consensus position regarding the issue has been established);
  • possibly, there are other possibilities.
I couldn't find a WP article or article section where Philippine sovereignty status transition situation was documented in an encyclopedic manner with cited supporting sources. In light of the possibilities just mentioned, I considered this to be a failing on WP's part. As a hardworking WP editor, I set out to fix this perceived failing by organizing info which I had collected in a discussion paper offshoot of that discussion I mentioned, along with info gleaned from a number of Wikipedia articles touching on events related to these status transitions into this article, presenting that information and citing supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I sympathize with you being an active Wikipedia contributor and creator of content and your wish to discuss or have issues of interest represented in Wikipedia. However, the vast majority of content in this article is inappropriate and does not belong under the article title. Most of it is about interpreting a historical matter not a current political one. All other sovereignty articles I've seen are concerned with current political disputes. To keep such information under this heading implies it is a current political issue. It is not. Other articles give better context to the historical issue and to have it here is redundant.
Furthermore, the article is written mainly to support one point of view. It is essay like in that regard. You have had the opportunity to easily include other pertinent points of view but have not done so and have selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints even if they were on the same page or the next page of sources you cite. That indicates deliberate omission of pertinent information and that you have written this article with the intent to advocate your preferred point of view. The cosmetic changes that have been made in response to some criticism still leave the article lopsided in favor of the viewpoint you wish to present while other expressed criticism remains unaddressed. POV warning banner is still appropriate. Lambanog (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The point of view for which I espouse support is the one enunciated by the lead sentence of Wikipedia's verifiability policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

If you feel that I have left important points out, please add relevant points which I have missed. Please, though, cite reliable sources supporting the added material. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I did not bring up verifiability as the main problem although I have identified some weaknesses in that regard as well. The problem if I am not being clear enough is POV. Lambanog (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please regard me as a casual reader on this dispute. What other points of view should I learn in regards to this topic that hasn't been presented yet on the article? --Bluemask (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are addressing Bluemask, but if it is me then answer me this: presuming one starts from a state of ignorance, from this article can you explain the position of Aguinaldo's government or that of the First Malolos Republic? Lambanog (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added some info on that to the article, along with supporting cites. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite your edits I don't see how they would affect Bluemask's ability to answer my question. Lambanog (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What's up with this article?[edit]

This article is simply superfluous and redundant. I cannot imagine its feasibility. If this article came into life because of the "insurgency" and "war" issues at the Philippine-American War talk pages, I see no merits in its creation, and the issues should be resolved where it originated. It seems to be that this article is written in an historical context and framework; therefore, it cannot stand on its own and should be, at the least, be merged with the Philippine-American War article or any relevant sub-topic related to Philippine History. I'm afraid this article will be prone to non-NPOV issues. If there is a need to inform or educate about the "sovereignty of the Philippines" and its "status as an independent sovereign state" at the present times, then perhaps the article could prosper. But then, do we have to write in a separate article what "Republic of the Philippines" means in the phrase "Republic of the Philippines" from the article Philippines?. Again, point of contention: redundancy. Moreover, to write this article in an historical context and framework "with particular emphasis on the passing of sovereignty from Spain to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1898), signed on December 10, 1898 to end the Spanish-American War" is already provoking POV issues. Was Philippine sovereignty a ball from a basketball game that was passed on from one to another? Is this what this article is all about? What really is the purpose of this article? I don't wanna smell something fishy. --Weekeejames (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is a Wikipedia:summary style spinout (please do follow those wikilinks) of a topic which impacts multiple articles related to the Philippines, spinning the topic out into a standalone article allows it to be treated in more detail than would be suitable in every article impacted by the topic.
A partial list of articles impacted by this topic has been mentioned above, and includes the List of sovereign states by formation date, List of sovereign states in 1898, List of countries by Independence Day, First Philippine Republic, Philippine Revolution, Spanish-American War, Philippine Revolution, Philippine-American War, History of the Philippines (1898-1946) articles. The question of whether Philippine insurgent entities such as the First Philippine Republic were legitimate, independent, sovereign states comes up from time to time in these articles, and that question can impact other articles (e.g., President of the Philippines, Tagalog Republic, Republic of Biak-na-Bato, ...) as well. It is simply impractical to deal with the question of Philippine sovereignty in detail separately in each article every time it arises.
Spinning this topic out into a standalone article which deals with it in detail allows articles which are impacted by the topic to wikilink to this article as a source of details on the topic. In this standalone article, all significant viewpoints relevant to the topic that have been published by reliable sources can be given due weight. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Going by your argument should a spinoff article titled "Sovereignty of the United States" be created which is 80% about how the American Revolution was unlawful, how the United States was an opportunistic aggressor and loser of the War of 1812, how Native Americans were exterminated and their lands confiscated based on alien concepts of law forcibly imposed on them, how the Mexican-American War was a legally baseless war initiated by a covetous United States, how throughout its history the United States has a habit of concocting a pretext to start conflicts and infringe on the sovereignty of others while expanding its own, how the United States cites points of international law where convenient and beneficial to it but is more than willing to ignore them entirely when not, and how because of such an attitude the country is considered hypocritical and a legitimate target by certain groups yet many Americans seem oblivious to the reasons? Certainly such a topic would cover more areas than this one and be of more current interest to more people. That said I don't think I'd personally support the creation of such an article with that kind of content, so I don't see your rationale here for this one as particularly convincing. Lambanog (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand that this article is more technical in nature (spinout) or putting everything together about something that impacts other articles, but I'm not fully convinced why its creation warrants its purpose or why it should exist. Other [impacted] articles can talk about this topic within them in relevant contexts, yet writing this article on this topic alone as a "source of details on the topic" is preposterous. If the word "power" impacts the articles of "The Economy of the United States", the "Foreign Policy of China", and the "Armed Forces of Russia" for example, do I have to write the article the "Power of the United States, China, and Russia" (collectively) in a limited historial perspective (say from 1945-1993) just because "power" impacts the three articles? Just my two cents. Weekeejames (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Weekejames, As I said above, it is simply impractical to deal with the question of Philippine sovereignty in detail separately in each article every time it arises. A summary style article on the topic is needed. Perhaps the article could be better named and arranged differently—I have no problem with working in that direction. I'll address this further in the recently added #Move this section below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Lambanog, if the insurgency known as the American revolution had failed and, despite this, there were WP editors who persistently changed articles to assert that while the insurgency was in progress it was a legitimate independent government, a sovereign state, Then an article similar to this one would be needed for that hypothetical case. That isn't the case, though. The difference doesn't lie in the situation re the U.S. vs the situation re the R.P., the difference lies in the impact of successful vs unsuccessful insurgency. Apples and oranges. If you have problems with America an/or with Americans, this isn't the place to air them, and you should guard against allowing such problems develop into POV issues. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Tag-bombing by User:Lambanog[edit]

In this edit, User:Lambanog appears to be tag-bombing this article. I consider this disruptive editing. Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely. I'm an admin but, as I am a significant contributor to this article, it would be improper for me to apply a block here.

Labmbanog, please show cause why you should not be reported as a disruptive editor and/or discuss each of your additional taggings under the individual tags listed below:

{{Missing information|all parties and conflicts of interest in the dispute and their positions and external factors affecting said positions}}
{{misleading}}
{{Essay-like}}
{{globalize/US}}
{{POV-section}} in Philippine declaration of independence, Revolutionary government
{{POV-section}} in Independence and sovereignty
{{POV-section}} in Philippine Supreme Court statements regarding sovereignty

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the tags in good faith because I see the article as seriously deficient in content. The tags are pretty clear self-evident in what areas I think it is so. Read the above discussion and you will see specific criticism that remains unaddressed. I also note I removed a general tag and used more carefully directed and specific ones to aid any editors that wish to know the areas of conflict. The tags are my expression of editorial dissatisfaction with it. I could edit the article directly but I think I'd be deleting a lot of it. Neither would I wish to implicitly support or condone what I see as your questionable reasons for creating the article by editing it in other ways. I consider it largely your baby and up to you to bring it up to snuff. The tags give you room to improve it. If you feel the tags are unwarranted despite my view that they are then perhaps we should skip this step and an AfD is the way to go.
Those are my reasons. Since we're on this matter of editor motivations please show cause why you should not be cited for violation of WP:COI or WP:ADVOCACY. Lambanog (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel that I should be cited for violation of those policies because I have not violated them. I have copiously supported my additions to this article by citations of reliable sources, and do not believe that my additions advocate any point of view not supported by such sources. If I have missed asserting alternative points of view, it is because I have been unable to find reliable sources supporting alternative points of view (I have tried). I believe that all points of view supported by reliable sources should be given due weight, and I have urged you without success to add cite-supported assertions of such alternative points of view to this article. For my incident report concerning you, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by User:Lambanog. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(addition) Re your comment that you see this article as largely my baby and that it is up to me to bring it up to snuff, please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No vested contributors. I also recommend Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Move this[edit]

to Recognition of Philippine independence. I'm sure there's a similar article somewhere (hint: Kosovo). –Howard the Duck 12:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection in principal to such a move, but I don't think the suggested name is a good one. As I said here, the primary reason that I think a standalone article discussing what I've heretofore termed "sovereignty transitions" (or similar) is that the question of whether and to what extent past insurgent movements in the Philippines, some of which at some point proclaimed independence in some form, some of which proclaimed/published/established internal constitutions, some of which styled themselves as governmental entities, were in actuality legitimate, independent, sovereign states — that goes a bit beyond Recognition of Philippine independence, That question comes up repeatedly in various articles, some of which I have mentioned above, and it deserves to be covered in detail in a WP article which other articles can reference by wikilink. An article by another name is fine by me; an article with a different structure is fine by me.
I note that the Philippine independence article is presently a redirect to History of the Philippines (1946–1965), and has only a few links to it. Can we get a consensus here to retarget Is there any objection here to retargeting those links and doing an article on the topic of Philippine independence which would, within that larger topic, address the independence status of various unsuccessful insurgent movements in the Philippines (at least the major ones) which, while they existed, styled themselves in some regard as governments? Wtmitchell Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The point of contention is, a group of people with territory and government can claim they possess sovereignty, but when nobody recognizes that sovereignty, it's basically useless. Sovereignty is manifested when a country discharges relations with other countries. When a country is not recognized, it can't manifest its sovereignty. Again, I suggest we follow the Kosovo example for precedent in article naming. –Howard the Duck 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are some Kosovo-related articles we can model this with:
Howard the Duck 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


The Political status of Kosovo article discusses a dispute in international law. The International recognition of Kosovo article discusses positions of Sovereign states and some politically significant non-state actors regarding that. The discussion here, OTOH, as I perceive it revolves around User:Lambanog's unsupported POV opinions as an individual Wikipedia editor vs. cited reliable sources (largely this source -- in re the reliability status of which, see WP:RS#Scholarship). The sovereignty assertions made in this article and in the table below (which, I'm thinking is a better presentation) should be considered as statements of fact verifiably supported by cited reliable sources unless and until challenged by assertions supported by differing reliable sources (presented IAW WP:DUE). I've been smoothing out various rough edges in the table below at User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox and, barring significant objection or suggestion of alternatives here, I'll probably create a Timeline of Philippine sovereignty article with that content and redirect this article name to that article. Comments? Objections? Alternatives? Suggestions? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of Philippine sovereignty[edit]

How about replacing this nascent article with a Timeline of Philippine sovereignty article instead? Following is one which I have put together quickly. It's rough, needs work on wikilinks, probably needs some supporting cites, no doubt has some typos and errors and/or omissions, and it contains some info which wouldn't be there in an actual article (e.g., the "de-facto" stuff), but it ought to be pretty close. Re omissions, it does not mention the Hukbalahap, MILF, MNLF, NLF, or Abu Sayyaf at all. I'd need to do some research to get an idea if and where those groups might fit in.

Using sovereignty in the title is dubious. Also can you point to another article like this on Wikipedia? Lambanog (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions for alternative titles, though I'm dubious about the asserted dubiousness of using the word sovereignty in the title. Can you support the asserted dubiousness of that?
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Deciding an article name says that, ideally, article titles should be: recognizable, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent. Regarding consistency, it says further, "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles"; that would seem to be a consideration only if other similar articles exist. What pattern of other similar articles would you say that the naming of a timeline article such as this should follow (consistent with the other specified characteristics, of course)? Can you suggest a better name within the WP naming conventions policy than "Timeline of Philippine sovereignty" for an article on the timeline of Philippine sovereignty? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Sovereignty is not defined in the chart. Sovereignty I would also say is a loaded term. Wars have been started due to differences in interpretation of sovereignty so POV issues must be met. Moreover the chart does not seem to be about the sovereignty of the Philippines as it is about the sovereignty of Spain and the sovereignty of the United States as it pertains to the Philippines. If you can find uncontroversial examples of similar charts mention them. A "Timeline of Philippine events" in principle does not raise concerns if the content follows guidelines. Column headings of "sovereign entity" and "insurgent groups" though are leading and inaccurate. Labeling Aguinaldo's government as an "insurgent group" is controversial and labeling Japan an "insurgent group" is faulty. The current proposed chart still seems to be pushing and trying to prove a particular point of view and omitting others that are very significant so it does not meet NPOV. Lambanog (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The word is is not defined in the table either (a nod to WJC); see the Sovereignty article and/or look it up. WP:NPOV issues are addressed by, among other things, meeting policy requirements of WP:DUE (about which, particularly note the final paragraph there; WP:V policy requirements must be met). The table below is about what entity held sovereignty over the territory of the Philippines at various points in time (i.e., the "timeline of Philippine sovereignty"). I recognize that Aguinaldo and his fellow insurgents considered themselves to be the leaders of variously-named and variously-chartered Philippine national governments (in re which see this and this edit), but (with a nod to Monty Python and the Holy Grail), "Just because some watery tart hands you a sword, does not a sovereign make!" I've been dithering about labeling Japan an "insurgent group" myself; I think it would be better to put both Japan and the U.S. in the Sovereign entity column during the WW-II occupation period, with a bullet-note that sovereignty was in dispute during that period. For the umpteenth time, if you know info which is at variance with the info I've presented (for a later version of which, see User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox), please present such info out, along with verifiable and reliable supporting sources. Also see my latest response in the section above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The Republic of the Philippines considers Aguinaldo a legitimate president. You are fully aware of this, so whether it is a "watery tart" in your opinion or not is hardly relevant. A sovereign government representing 92 million plus people is not an insignificant viewpoint. Your interpretation does not follow NPOV. Lambanog (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to a source supporting your assertion above re what the Republic of the Philippines considers, and possibly giving a bit more detail about that? I am aware that this rp.gov page lists Aguinaldo, as "President of the First Philippine Republic" and describes him as "Filipino leader who fought first against Spain and later against the United States for the Independence of the Philippines." That begs the inference that the RP considers Aguinaldo a legitimate president, but it falls short of explicitly supporting that assertion. Are you aware of a source which does explicitly support that assertion—one which supports the related point that the First Philippine Republic was a legitimate, independent, sovereign state? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(added) FYI, you might look at Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, The United Nations, 17 March – 26 April 1960, p. 7  (the online document is in a google cache, and will disappear at some point), which quotes a "Mr. TOLENTINO (Philippines)" in introducing his delegation's amendment as recalling,

"... in the Treaty of Paris of 10 december 1898 between Spain and the United States, the territorial limits of the Philippine Archipelago had been defined specifically and the United States had asserted sovereignty and jurisdiction within that territorial boundary."

My understanding is that this Mr. Tolentino was at the time speaking officially for the Republic of the Philippines. More information may be available in Arturo M. Tolentino (1982), The Philippines and the law of the sea: a collection of articles, statements, and speeches, Published for the Secretariat to the Cabinet Committee on the Law of the Sea Treaty by the Development Academy of the Philippines Press . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the government website: it speaks for itself. Aguinaldo is there on a list of Philippine presidents. Aguinaldo is considered the first Philippine president. Aguinaldo appears on the 5 peso coin and when the 5 peso note was still printed it depicted Aguinaldo's declaration of Philippine independence in 1898 in Kawit. Fidel Ramos in his presidential inaugural address refers to eleven predecessors. As for Mr. Tolentino, recognition of various facts does not necessitate mutually exclusive conclusions. Furthermore his comments in 1960 should be seen in context of the pertinent policy shifts in 1962 and 1964 in regards to this subject. In any event there is more than ample cause to say that not including this viewpoint is a major point of view failure of this article. Lambanog (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding that government website, yes, it does speak for itself and, AFAICS, it does not speak to the question of whether the First Philippine Republic was a sovereign national government. Despite what you seem to believe, I am not an ideologue on this. I do believe, however, that Wikipedia's verifiability policy should be followed (again, the lead sentence at WP:V reads: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.") I have looked for reliable sources on this, and the only ones I have found which speak directly to this point say that sovereignty passed directly from Spain to the U.S.—support for that assertion is easy to find. I've only seen support for alternative assertions through strained/creative interpretation of what the source actually says (as in your interpretation of that government website) and/or via synthesis of published material that advances a position. I've looked for sources supporting alternative positions, and not found any that I think are verifiable and reliable. Perhaps I've missed finding sources which I should have seen. For the umpteenth-plus-oneth time, can you suggest a verifiable, reliable source supporting the assertion, either contemperaneously or in retrospect, that any, some, or all of Aguinaldo's variously named and variously chartered insurgent movements styled as national governments actually were, or were considered by creditible, entities to be independent, sovereign national governments? If reliable sources exist unambiguously supporting such an assertion, the assertion should be given due weight visibility in the article and the supporting sources should be cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I've stated over and over WP:NPOV is the problem. If you wish, since you seem confident in your argument and I in mine, is there any objection to sending this to AfD to settle the matter? Lambanog (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about taking so long to respond. I missed the watchlist notification of your edit above and I only saw it today. Of course, the decision whether to list the article(s) at WP:AfD is yours, but AFAICS it does not meet the Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion.
As this talkpage belongs to an article which is now a redirect, I think that this discussion should continue of the Talk:Timeline of Philippine sovereignty. I have more to say over there which may lead to a solution — please join me there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of Philippine sovereignty article[edit]

As discussed above in the #Move this section above, I've created an article titled Timeline of Philippine sovereignty and have replaced the previous content of this article with a redirect to that one. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that the article has been moved and edited (at least) this way (for now). An article on sovereignty of a once colony of two countries can never be presented in an NPOV manner. It will always cause controversy especially when taken into historical framework and that the fact the people of the colony faught for freedom cannot be disregarded. As soon as an article (by itself) creates or stirs controversy, it is already presenting a point of view in a not so neutral manner. In this context, sovereignty per se does not create the controversy, but the article [on the topic of sovereignty] itself. --Weekeejames (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
As detailed in the #What's up with this article? section above, the controversy predated the article(s). Absent articles focusing on the topic of Philippine sovereignty, however, questions re sovereignty status of the Philippines at various points in time were/are dealt with separately, individually, and often differently each time such questions arose. Once the article stabilizes in a consensus-supported form, questions can be dealt with uniformly and in accord with that consensus. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)