Talk:History of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleHistory of the Philippines is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 20, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 30, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
January 3, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

British Rule[edit]

The recent vandalism of this section by $antander has been reversed.

Although the British only occupied Manila and Cavite and some small areas around, the British controlled Manila Bay and the government. After the short siege of Manila, the Spanish government of the Philippines surrendered and formally ceded the whole of the Philippines to the British.

Legally, the British ruled the Philippines, even though the only oidor outside Manila, Don Simon Anda y Salazar, was very active in Pangasinan resisting British occupation.

It might be considered an unhappy fact that the British managed to take over the government of the Philippines from the Spanish. And although it was only for about 18 months, and in the context of the Seven Years War, it nevertheless is a very relevant fact for Philippines history.

Gubernatoria (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The even more recent vandalism by $antander has again been reversed for the following reasons: 1. The Spanish Navy was not defeated. Spanish land forces were defeated. 2. Arandia was the Royal Governor of the Philippines, not commander of the Spanish Navy wherever. 3. The archbishop was Lieutenant Governor, not Lieutenant general. 4. Not all parts of what is now called the Philippines was under Spanish rule. Only the Spanish Philippines were Spanish. The Sultanate of Sulu, for instance, was not under Spanish rule, but is now part of the Philippines. 5. Archbishop Rojo was acting governor of the Philippines, not just Manila. He surrendered the whole of the Spanish Philippines to the British. 6. Spanish Rule devolved to the British by written terms of the Spanish surrender. 7. The British legally ruled the (Spanish) Philippines by right of conquest and the Spanish terms of surrender. These facts are referenced and available in the cited passages. The recent edits by $antander are unreferenced, and some are plainly nonsensical.

Gubernatoria (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

$antander, has once more vandalised the British Rule section. He has once more changed all the dates from British format to US format. The British format was the original format for this section of the article, so $antander is in breach of wikipedia language guidelines. Do not do it again $antander or you will be reported for multiple vandalism. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

$antander, changed the caption for the Spanish Battle standard to read Coat of arms of Manila were at the corners of the Cross of Burgundy in the Philippine Islands. Prior to his edit the caption read Coat of arms of Manila were at the corners of the Cross of Burgundy in the Philippine standard. The Cross of Burgundy was on the flag NOT on the country. His edit was nonsensical. But today he again changed the caption and justified it by saying the flag was the coat of arms of the entire islands. philippines was new spain. Anyone who looks up New Spain in wikipedia will see that the Philippines was NEVER New Spain. Is this multiple vandalism or just utter carelessness by $antander ? Gubernatoria (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

At 02:19, 2 December 2008 $antander again vandalised the article. He has been repeatedly warned. Since this is a repeated violation for the same thing, after repeated warnings, I request administration to bar him from editing this article again. Administration is also invited to consider all his other recent "corrections" in light of this latest action. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

At 06:17, 2 December 2008 $antander once again vandalised the article. He has been informed that wikipedia policy is not to change the original version of english from British to US, or vice versa. His 'corrections' imply the British standard of the original contribution (by me) is wrong. This is contrary to wikipedia policy as I understand it. He has been notified of this but persists in his repeated vandalism, and insists he has not breach wikipedia policy. He has been reported for vandalism but is still persisting. Would an administrator please intervene. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the governing consideration here should be consistency throughout the article. See WP:ENGVAR (particularly the Consistency within articles and the Strong national ties to a topic subsections there) and Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Full date formatting (particularly the Format consistency subsection there). Overall, this article has, IMHO, stronger national ties to America than to Britain—arguing for standardization on American vs. British standards of spelling and date formatting. A separate article on British rule in the Philippines (1762-1764) might be argued to have stronger ties to Britain. A differently-slanted article on The Philippines under British rule (1762-1764) might be argued to lack those ties. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Boracay Bill, dates in Philippine-related articles should be in US format. TheCoffee (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


The Philippine History Page And All Associated Articles need a Radical Overhaul[edit]

It's the New Year and tons of new historical states and various archeological findings have been discovered about the Philippines recently, pushing the limits and breaking molds of traditional information. This new information is suddenly and haphazardly inserted to a structural framework that doesnt sync with it at all! This renders the current version of Philippine history moot and outdated. It's time for a radical overhaul.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Issues in the Philippine-American War section[edit]

The enlarged illustrations appear to have been intentionally superimposed to give an impression that America was the most cruel colonial power in the Philippines -a common Anti-American mantra or hate campaign among communists in the Philippines. You cannot see the same tenor towards Spain and Japan here in this article. Spanish and Japanese atrocities are at most described at a minimum. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed misleading and irrelevant image that properly belongs to another article[edit]

The image portraying Jacob H. Smith's order is quiet problematic. First, it is misleading as it tends to project to the reader that killing children was the official and prevailing U.S. policy at that time, which is not. The alleged order only came from the mouth of a single officer and purports to a single incident which was never officially sanctioned nor given any official approval. This is evidenced by the fact that subsequent to the alleged events, court martial proceedings were directed against those who committed the alleged acts. Second, the image is irrelevant because nowhere in the text of the section is the incident specifically described. Furthermore, an article has already been written for that purpose (Balangiga massacre). It is there where the image should find utmost relevance. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The image was restored in this edit with an edit summary of "Restore image. No consensus for removal." I don't see any tie-in for the image content in the prose of this section. A smaller-sized version of this image is present in Philippine–American War#War crimes, which is linked as a {{main}} article in this section. I think that the inclusion of this image there is much more appropriate than the inclusion here. Given the brevity of the summary style Philippine-American War section prose in this article, I think that the inclusion of the image here gives undue weight to its content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Wtmitchell. Images must be reflective of what the section says. Since the section purports to be a summary of the Philippine American War, images used must be descriptive of that summary. In this particular case, it is not. Rather, it only points to a single incident which does not reflect the over-all nature of the war itself. It misleads the reader into thinking, that killing children above ten years old was the general and over-all direction of the war. Thinkinggecko (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we now have a consensus? To other editors, comments are invited. If nobody objects in the next 7 days, I'll take the aforementioned discussion as the consensus for this matter and proceed to remove the image accordingly. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Therebeing no additional points raised, I'm taking the aforementioned discussion as the consensus for this matter. I shall proceed to remove the subject image. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Reversion. Let's talk.[edit]

I've reverted this edit, which had an edit summary of "Removed out of context, irrelevant racist ramblings against Spain and added President McKinley's statements". The edit may have some merit, but it has been applied too boldly and with too much POV. Let's talk about which of the removed ramblings are racist and how so, which ones are perceived to have been taken out of context, and in what context they should be considered.

Also, re the McKinley statement, I'll point out that the context in which it was delivered, prior to the beginning of the Spanish-American War, was as follows:

Of the untried measures there remain only: recognition of the insurgents as belligerents; recognition of the independence of Cuba; neutral intervention to end the war by imposing a rational compromise between the contestants, and intervention in favor of one or the other party. I speak not of forcible annexation, for that cannot be thought of. That by our code of morality would be criminal aggression.[1]

That statement was later lifted out of context and applied to the developing situation in the Philippines (as e.g., here), and pointing out its relevance in the context of the U.S. acquisition of the Philippines (annexation is too strong a word here, and cession, though technically accurate, is probably too soft) may have some merit, but the context needs to be preserved and the application of a statement from another context here explained—lifting the statement out of context and slapping it into the lead section of the article without explanation is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. The statement came to this article via a source which routinely disregards historical context and demonizes U.S. actions in the Philippine-American War (some of which actions, admittedly, richly deserve demonization).

This is an encyclopedia article, not a position paper on one point of view about who were the good guys and who were the bad guys regarding this bit of history. As William Tecumseh Sherman observed twenty years or so prior to the Philippine-American War, "War is Hell".

Apologies for the bluntness of the above, but I am pushed for time at the moment and did not want to rush off to other things and leave this unaddressed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wtmitchell
You are partly right in your observations. And I most apologize for having made just a single huge edit instead of several that are easier to revert on a single basis. I will now divide the edits into several entries, so they are easier to pinpoint.
OK, Let's talk.
First of all, the Philippines were unified for the first time ever under Spanish rule. Prior to that there was no Philippines as such. No one can argue that.
Second, to speak of smallpox, venereal disease, leprosy etc as one of the contributions made by the Spanish would be like crediting the malaria pandemic that killed over 200000 Filipinos during the American-Filipino War as an US contribution. Besides, neither smallpox, venereal disease or leprosy were that prominent in the Philippines as to make them worth of being slapped into the lead section of the article. Same goes for wars of aggression with firearms, deforestation, tribute, alienation of land, forced migration, heavy taxes. The Philippines were largely unprofitable for Spain. Spain actually put in more resources than it took away.
Third, to say "Universal education was never a Spanish objective in the Philippines." would be untrue. Universal education was made free for all Filipino subjects during the second part of the 19th century and remained so until the end of the Spanish colonial era.
Fourth, the American-Filipino war left a total number of casualties on the Filipino side of more than one million dead, many of them civilians. There's ample documentation on these numbers. Failing to mention this genocide that killed more than 10% of the population from the article would be irresponsible and totally unencyclopedic.
Fifth, Rizal was wrongly accused of implication in the outbreak of the revolution. No need to discuss that, it is a well known fact.
As for the McKinley statements, I believe they should be included, as they reflect the US position at the time. I will wait for your wise advice to point me in the right direction as to where to include them, as I'm sure you will agree, that being the official statements of the President of United States on the matter, they ought to be considered as 100% relevant to the topic.
Rafael Minuesa (talk) 13 April 2010

Thanks for your response. I'm not an academic, but I do have a strong interest in this topic with a focus on the 1898-1946 period. I'm currently in the middle of a house move and my books are packed. I see that you are relatively new to Wikipedia, at least as a logged-in editor. and I've left a comment on your talk page. Please take the time to read that before reading this further.

I agree with your first point above, noting that it says "under Spanish Rule". Whether that amounts to "Spanish rule achieved the political unification" your edited version or "Spanish rule unsuccessfully attempted to achieve the political unification" (the pre-edit version) depends on what "political unification" is taken to mean. If it is taken to mean colonial subjugation, you're right. I don't know what, if anything, the supporting source currently cited in that lede paragraph has to say about that, but I think that chapter one of Kalaw, Maximo Manguiat (1927), The Development of Philippine Politics, Oriental commercial generally supports it.

Re your second point, I agree that the details you have removed did not belong in the lede. I would point out, though, that this snippet from the cited supporting source does seem to show that the removed material is supportable.

Re your third point, I can't take the time now to research the development of the educational system under Spanish rule and, as I daid, my books are packed. From what I recall, I think that it is reasonable to say that little or no formal educational system existed in pre-Spanish times, and that there was a formal system in place, probably largely Church-based, by Spanish-American War times. That war and the Philippine-American War which followed pretty well destroyed that system, and the Taft Commission built up a new educational system to replace it.

Re your fourth point, Content-wise I agree. I would point out that this is a summary style article, generally presenting an overview of topics covered in more detail in other articles. As such, it is important that the overview presented here generally agree with the details presented in the more topic-specific articles. You flatly state that civilian casualties numbered over a million, and cite sources which presumably support that. However sources disagree on that figure, and it is not appropriate for individual WP editors to cherrypick which POVs to present. Philippine–American War#Casualties gives, I think, a balanced presentation but too much detail for this article. Perhaps, in "... leaving a total number of casualties on the Filipino side of more than one million dead, many of them civilians.", the word "of" would be better replaced with something like "estimated by some as".

Re your fifth point, I think "implicated" here is the wrong word, and it should be "wrongly accused of involvement".

As to McKinley's statements, my understanding is that the statement, "by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression" specifically referred to Cuba, not to the Philippines. I tried to make that clear in my requote above, but I see that in my haste I botched the link to supporting material. The link should have pointed here. I've removed your reinsertion of that McKinley quote and inserted a {{cn}} tag following "... since the American government had reassured the Filipino rebels that the U.S. was interested only in defeating Spain and, in the process, helping the Filipinos gain their independence." Please take a look at History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#Did the U.S. promise independence? and the supporting sources cited there.

I've also reverted your change of "Filipinos initially saw their relationship ..." to "Filipinos initially were lead to believe that their relationship ..." back to the earlier wording. That wording was supported by a cited supporting source and, though I haven't seen the source I'm doubtful that it supports such a substantial change and the former wording fits better with the more detailed information in the more topic-specific articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell, I'm also a very busy man, but I'm also very interested in this topic. I partly agree with most of the edits in its current version. I will do some research as I see some points not clear enough.

Regarding the formal educational system that existed in Spanish times, I think you should be made aware of the fact that in 1863, Queen Isabel II of Spain decreed the establishment of a public school system. Ironically, it was during the initial years of American occupation in the early 20th century, that Spanish literature and press flourished.

You shouldn't trust that much American military propaganda sources when researching this topic, as their main objective was the denial of Spanish influence in the culture, traditions and language of the Philippines. There are many unbiased sources that can clarify many aspects of that era, some of them written in Spanish by Filipinos, who in many cases had fought against the colonial government, so their Spain's bias is out of question. I'd be delighted to translate them for you if you need any help. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You should be aware that sources which present information with which individual WP editors disagree should not be dismissed on the basis of such disagreement. Please read WP:NPOV.
Your recent unsupported content addition to the article is interesting, but I wish you had cited a supporting source. Please read WP:V. Googling around, I see that this source (which is mentioned in the Spanish language in the Philippines article) says that in 1898 (the beginning of the American era in the Philippines) , at most 15-20% of the population spoke Spanish. (that source is in Spanish, a language which I do not speak, but I managed to get that much out of it). One report at the time in 1916, however, said, "... Spanish is everywhere the language of business and social intercourse...In order for anyone to obtain prompt service from anyone, Spanish turns out to be more useful than English...And outside of Manila it is almost indispensable. The Americans who travel around all the islands customarily use it" (see [2]).
Though I'm personally not very knowledgeable on the history of Spanish language usage in the Philippines, I disagree with your assertion that the main objective of the Americans was the denial of Spanish influence in the culture, traditions and language of the Philippines. The main objective was to set up a viable system of gevernance in the country. In a statement published on September 1, 1900, the Taft Commission commissioners announced the holding of public meetings every Wednesday and Friday to give interested parties the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on proposed legislative matters. The open sessions were mainly conducted in English and Spanish. As the Americans became familiar with Spanish, the commissioners allowed their guests to use the language of their choice. (see Escalante, Rene R. (2007), The Bearer of Pax Americana: The Philippine Career of William H. Taft, 1900-1903, Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, p. 88, ISBN 9789711011666).Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
That source you cite that says that in 1898, at most 15-20% of the population spoke Spanish comes from a Spanish professor from Madrid who is giving his opinion, based on nothing else than his personal beliefs. In that very same document you'll read the opinion of another Filipino professor who puts that figure at 60-70%
Please re-read my statements again. I said that you shouldn't trust "American military propaganda sources", not Americans as a whole.

In my opinion, Mark Twain was a very respectable American. On the other hand, American General Jacob H. Smith, who ordered to "kill everyone over ten", obviously was not deserving of any respect at all.

This exchange appears to have wandered off topic. It either needs to come to a close or to refocus on improvements to this particular article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Spanish is everywhere the language of business and social intercourse...In order for anyone to obtain prompt service from anyone,

That 1916 report if you pasted it from an article written online was misinforming its readers. Where was it copied from? Was it from an article written in 2001? Googling,I saw several of the same quoted statements in articles and all of them has Henry Ford as the author of the source. The same author who wrote in the same year the following: (Note book was published prior to 1923. It is now a public domain in the USA and the book was printed in the USA)

Woodrow Wilson: The Man and His Work By Henry Jones Ford - Princeton March 1916 Page 213 - The Filipino gentry speak Spanish and the masses speak native dialects which are not low languages but are refined and capable instruments of thought producing poetry drama and romantic literature although deficient in science Page 215 - As an incident of the educational scheme literacy qualifications for the suffrage were confined to those who could read and write either Spanish or English. This provision while designed to stimulate acquisition of English speech had incidentally the effect of propagating grave misrepresentations of the situation. Attention has often been called to the fact that the qualified electorate is an extraordinarily small percentage of the adult male population thus indicating that illiteracy generally prevails. But this is not really the case and it appears to be so merely because natives who cannot read and write a foreign language are officially classed as illiterate. Probably it is the only instance in history in which people who can read and write their own language are classed as illiterate.

The same author also stated in the same book that more people were speaking Spanish than when the U.S.A. regime began, while at the same time the native dialects were still being used to reach the masses.

Page 217 - Meanwhile the hold of native dialect is apparently not shaken at all but on the contrary its use is being strengthened by the activity of patriotic sentiment. Native dialect is the medium through which the abundant literature of Filipino politics reaches the masses and at present it looks as if the vernacular will be the permanent channel of popular thought and feeling

The pro Spanish group has been cherry picking their sources, giving information that can be misleading. IsaLang (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

United States territory: Removal of unnecessary tags and misplaced local links[edit]

I removed the tags and local links inserted in this edit. First because the whole paragraph (where the tags were placed) is supported by a credible and verifiable source, and second because the editor did not provide an equally credible authority to dispute the paragraph's assertions(one which would justify the insertion of the aforesaid tags). Having thus failed to provide an equally credible source that disputes the factual assertions made in the aforementioned paragraph, the tags are therefore unnecessary.

On the issue of a healthcare, It would be unnecessary to point to a particular event when the system was established because this took a series of steps such as the establishment of the Military Board of Health in 1898, the Civilian Board of Health in 1901, the Bureau of Governmental Laboratories also in 1901, and the establishment of a plethora of health centers all throughout the country (both by government and the private sector) such as the Philippine General Hospital (1907),[1] St.Luke's Medical Center (1903),[2] Iloilo Mission Hospital (1901),[3] the Dumaguete Mission Hospital (1901)[4] and many others.

On the issue of education, again no clarification is needed because that aspect of Philippine history is already well-established, particularly on the coming of the Thomasites, a group of teachers sent by the American Government which eventually resulted in the growth of the Philippine public school system. Prior to this period, education for the most part was limited to the moneyed elite. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "History". Philippine General Hospital. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
  2. ^ "About Us". Saint Luke's Medical Center. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
  3. ^ Klein, Amanda (1915). The Union Mission Hospital at Iloilo, Philippine Islands. The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 227-229
  4. ^ "Silliman Medical Center". PC(USA). Retrieved 2010-06-26.

LET'S RESURRECT THIS ARTICLE![edit]

This article has fallen from it's featured status into bad quality because of the rash of bad editors who has degraded it's quality. However, this is not totally bad in that, it gives us a chance to change it and make it even better than before. So to jump start the resurrection process. I propose that all of us start to contribute. I for one would like to add the Sultanate of Lanao and the Aponate of Irraya to expand into the history section (Will work on it in the coming weeks) while we also need people to help streamline the lead section to make it shorter.

It's time for REVIVAL! Who's with me? We shall once again reclaim the featured status! We can do it, if Philippine history has taught us anything it is that the Filipinos are experts at Resurrection. Our nation has been burned, flooded, earquaked, landslided and warred upon so many times but we always manage to revive, stronger than before. Therefore, I would like to call forth that spirit once again and ask our contributors to help facilitate the next wave of revival.

Yours Truly

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am with you. Forgive me for any errors I make. I added a small tidbit to the pre-history section that is well sourced. Some of the genetic studies are paygated, but I can show the illustrations from the research papers that confirm it. Please message me if you have any questions. Easy772 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics[edit]

This edit added a section named The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics. The assertion "The Americans had to war ..." there strikes me as being oversimplified to the point of incorrectness, though I have not seen the source cited there to support it. Also, the word heroic in "Despite heroic resistance from these three republics against American rule" strikes me as being neither NPOV nor encyclopedic.

The final paragraph of the section preceding this new one makes the point that shortly after the Americans ceased hostilities, a Philippine Constabulary was organized to deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement and gradually assume the responsibilities of the United States Army. There were, however, some instances of direct U.S. military action subsequent to the official cessation of hostilities (see Campaigns of the Philippine-American War#Post-war period). I've rewritten this section in this edit. It may need more work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

Upon its review on August 8, 2015, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.. (Specifically, the article contains a number of {{Unreliable source?}} tags and a {{Clarify}} tag.) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Philippine "Jade Age" in Prehistory[edit]

I was wondering if anyone else would like to help me fill in the blank between early neolithic settlement and 1000 BC when four distinct groups formed. Recent research is showing that the Jade discovered in the Philippines is evidence of communication with other prehistoric Southeast Asian communities. There are also a few pieces of bronze or copper artifacts dated to this time period, but not enough to suggest a "bronze age". Any and all help or contributions would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talkcontribs) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Creative writing[edit]

This edit, which changed a wikilink to China to go to China proper instead, caught my eye. Neither of those articles relates well to the historical period being discussed where the changed wikilink appears, but I couldn't think of an improvement.

After looking at this, I browsed through this article and eventually came across the The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics section, which sparked this comment. That section says,

During the First Philippine Republic, three other insurgent republics were briefly formed: the Tagalog Republic in Luzon, under Macario Sakay,[1] the Negros Republic in the Visayas under Aniceto Lacson, and the Republic of Zamboanga in Mindanao under Mariano Arquiza.[2] Despite resistance from these three republics ignored by Aguinaldo who included them in his gift to the USA, all three were eventually dissolved and the Philippines was ruled as a singular insular territory.

Regarding the first sentence there, according to the Tagalog Republic article, that term refers to two completely different insurgent revolutionary organizations styling themselves as governments: one formed by Bonifacio in 1896 and another under Sakay in 1902 (or maybe 1904 -- both years are mentioned, but the First Philippine Republic existed from 1899 to sometime in 1902 prior to the establishment of Sakay's breakaway republic). As far as I can see, it is incorrect to assert that either Bonifacio's or Sakay's "Tagalog Republic" was briefly formed "during the First Philippine Republlic."

In the second sentence there, I came across the bit about Aguinaldo's "gift to the USA" (see this January 2014 edit by an anon). WTF??? This appears to be a bit of unsupported unencyclopedic editorial opinionating -- a dig at the USA or a slap at Agunaldo, or perhaps both.

The The Tagalog, Negros and Zamboanga Cantonal Republics section needs a rewrite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kabigting Abad, Antonio (1955). General Macario L. Sakay: Was He a Bandit or a Patriot?. J. B. Feliciano and Sons Printers-Publishers.
  2. ^ "History of The Republic of Zamboanga (May 1899 – March 1903)". Zamboanga City, Philippines: Zamboanga (zamboanga.com). July 18, 2009. Archived from the original on August 2, 2010. Retrieved August 13, 2010. External link in |publisher= (help)

Stating the obvious[edit]

"The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun with the arrival of the first humans." Well indeed. When else might it have begun? Constant Pedant (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Big 'duh'. You're cutting off a sentence in the middle just for a laugh. But actually it goes: "The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun with the arrival of the first humans using rafts or boats at least 67,000 years ago" which is not that all that trivial. –Austronesier (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Not at all. The silliness of the sentence is not altered by adding the second half, it still says that the history of the Philippines began with the arrival of the first humans, regardless of how and when they arrived. The problem is solved by stating it like this: "The history of the Philippines is believed to have begun at least 67,000 years ago, with the arrival of the first humans using rafts or boats." Constant Pedant (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This sounds like nitpicking what is or is not properly defined as history. How about leaving that unargued here and just starting with something like "The first humans in the Philippines arrived [...]"? (arrived vs. are believed to have arrived is another matter, best left to a separate discussion) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Nitpicking is how we get things right. I wasn't going to get into the question of whether what happened 67,000 years ago is properly called "history" (It's actually prehistory - history begins with written records.) But I approve of your solution, so we don't need to discuss that :) . Constant Pedant (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)