Talk:Philippines
| ↓ | Skip to table of contents | ↓ |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philippines article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Article policies
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 | |||
|
|
|||
| Philippines 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article uses Philippine English dialect and spelling (color, realize, center). Some terms used in it may be different or absent from Singaporean, Indian, or other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on June 12, 2005 and June 12, 2006. |
| This subject is featured in the Outline of Philippines'Outline of the Philippines', which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia. |
Archives |
|---|
|
|
|
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 120 days may be automatically moved. |
|
|||||
| Wikipedia Meetups in the Philippines | |
| |
|
Contents
References[edit]
Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Filipino - People of the Philippines Pilipino - Language of the people of the Philippines 98.221.129.142 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Please note that we use the common name in English, not the Official name, nor the name in the local language. - Arjayay (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Negros Island Region (NIR) - references to Region XVIII[edit]
I have removed references to the new Negros Island Region (NIR) being called Region XVIII. There are several reasons for this:
First - Within Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), there is no specific mention that Regions can be renamed (no doubt this is because they are not like other LGUs).
Second - in same Act: SECTION 13. (g) The change of name of any local government unit shall be effective only upon ratification in a plebiscite conducted for the purpose in the political unit directly affected.
Third - if the Negros Island Region (NIR) is officially Region XVIII then there should be an official issuance to that effect (either executive or legislative).
Given that (to the best of my knowledge) there has been no plebiscite, executive or legislative issuance proclaiming that the Negros Island Region (NIR) is officially Region XVIII, the "XVIII" numerical designation is not part of said region's official name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwai94 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Region XVIII" is not the title of the article on the region. Even if it were, I see no problem with it as Wikipedia does not necessarily prefer to use official titles in naming articles. A simple reference to the region as Region XVIII (even if it is not official yet) should be allowed considering the number of WP:RS that calls it the new Region XVIII. I would restore those references based on reliable sources alone.--RioHondo (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- Based on WP:RS alone, Region XVIII is acceptable as another name for the Negros Island Region because reliable references have been provided to support such name. Citing the LGU Code of 1991 is misguided since regions by themselves are not separate political entities (with the exception of ARMM). Your second reason does not hold water as well because again, regions are not LGUs, therefore the LGU Code of 1991 does not apply to administrative regions. Therefore, there is no need for a plebiscite in renaming, reorganizing, abolishing, or amending the component LGUs of administrative regions. Your third reason is acceptable, given that EO 183 only calls the Negros Island Region as "NIR" and not explicitly with a numeric unlike those regions reorganized under EO 36 where, for instance, it is explicit that Region IX is the official name and Zamboanga Peninsula is the other name for one of the regions reorganinzed under that EO.
-
- I guess it would be acceptable to stick with NIR to refer to the Negros Island Region for now, since afterall, that is how it is referred to under EO 183, then place Region XVIII somewhere in the article for the region as an "unofficial" name. In fact, even the Philippine Statistics Authority calls the region as NIR and not Region XVIII. Xeltran (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- For me though, I would probably leave the region out without an acronym or number until the government officially acknowledges its designation. I get this impression that Regions labeled as acronyms instead of a region number, are those regions with special status: ARMM being the only autonomous region, NCR being the special capital region, and CAR being the formerly proposed autonomous region of the Cordilleran people. All the rest are "regular regions" which are designated with numbers. Negros, i believe, is just a regular administrative region.--RioHondo (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
-
Regions labelled with an acronym does not necessarily mean such regions have special status. All regions are administrative with the single exception of ARMM. Although, NCR is unusual in that there are no provinces within it.
If NIR was officially Region XVIII then that could cause some confusion to those not familiar with Philippine administrative divisions. Where are regions XIV, XV, XVI and XVII? Maybe this is why no official numerical designation was included in EO 36.
Furthermore, even though NIR is the 18th region to have been created that does mean it will necessarily be Region XVIII. For example, NCR was the 13th region to have been created but it was never called Region XIII (which is the designation given to Caraga, the 16th region to be created). In fact, soon after the NCR (or Metropolitan Manila as it was known as back then) was created, it was called Region IV with the existing Region IV (Southern Tagalog) renumbered as Region IV-A. You can read for yourself in PD 879.
Some sources claim that NIR is now officially Region XVIII. If anyone knows of official documentation changing the name to incorporate "Region XVIII" into the region's official name then please show me and I will gladly retract on the subject.
In conclusion, it is without prejudice that I have removed references to Region XVIII in preference of the official name although a reference remains on the NIR page to Region XVIII.
David A. Short (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC);
I am beginning to wonder what is actually meant by Negros Island Region is now officially Region XVIII. It could in fact mean one of two things:
First, it could mean Negros Island Region is now officially the 18th region (a reference to the region's creation).
Second, it could mean Negros Island Region is now officially Region No. 18 (a reference to the region's numerical designation)
Given this ambiguity, it is possible that the original statement is being misinterpreted. Either way, without either an executive or legislative issuance, the name cannot officially include Region XVIII.
David A. Short (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC);
Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2015[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.150.215.15 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Establishment[edit]
Here I reverted a very significant change to this page made by User:Shhhhwwww!! without having established a WP:Consensus for the change and without providing a WP:Edit summary. Shhhhwwww!! has a lamentable tendancy to make significant changes, sometimes changes impacting multiple articles, without either establishing a consensus or providing explanatory edit summaries. That behavior should probably be discussed in another venue. I won't go into that further here except to suggest that Shhhhwwww!! read Wikipedia:Ownership of content and the two other WP project pages wikiinked previously here.
Please consider this to be the Discussion phase of WP:BRD activity.
The reverted change would have changed the infobox summary of the establishment history of the RP as a nation from the reverted-to summary, which is consistent with the content of this article and with other WP articles about the Philippines, to instead assert in the infobox that the 1898 Philippine Declaration of Independence from Spain by Aguinaldo's insurgent revolutionary forces in fact established the Philippines as an independent, sovereign nation. That was certainly Aguinaldo's intent, but my understanding is that history confirms that his revolutionary efforts did not achieve that intended outcome.
A discussion related to this was recently begun at Talk:Independence Day (Philippines)#Philippine independence versus Independence Day (Philippines), but it hasn't attracted any participants. I will place a notification there of this related discussion.
I will be traveling today and will not be able to participate further in this discussion until (probably) tomorrow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- June 12, 1898 is the date accepted by both the Philippine government and the U.S. State Department (2013, 2014) There is no mention of the other dates as holidays, the British date is on the wrong day, and the Japanese date is on the wrong year. The U.S. dates are also in the footnote so it is just repetitive for it to be mentioned twice. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- If the Philippine government decides to celebrate July 4 again then it can go back to the infobox. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
First, I want to thank you for responding using the WP:BRD method of reaching consensus. Let's agree to freeze the portion of the article at issue here in its current state until a consensus about the change under discussion is reached here.
Second, want to point out that, though this discussion begins as an exchange between two editors, the purpose is to arrive at a community consensus on the issues being discussed. I want to encourage other interested editors ato join the discussion.
Third, regarding your assertion that the U.S. government accepts June 12, 1898 as the establishment date of the Republic of the Philippines as an independent sovereign state (I've sharpened up the wording there, but that is how I understand your assertion), you cited in support a June 11, 2015 press statement issued by John Kerry as U.S. Secretary of State which opens by saying, "On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I want to send best wishes to the people of the Republic of the Philippines as you commemorate the anniversary of your nation’s independence onJune 12." That statement clearly says what it says, but I don't believe that it was intended to reverse the longstanding U.S. Government position on this. I think that it is likely that Secretary Kerry, as a matter of routine diplomatic courtesy, signed and caused the release of a press statement congratulating the Philippine Government on its celebration of its Independence Day holiday which was prepared by a staffer who was underinformed in the nuances of the matter. Regarding my understanding of the longstanding U.S. Govermment position on the matter, I see e.g.:
- "A Guide to the United States' History of Recognition, Diplomatic, and Consular Relations, by Country, since 1776: Philippines". Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of Stare. The Summary section there says, "The United States recognized the Philippines in 1946."
- "U.S. Relations With the Philippines". Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State. February 5, 2015. This begins with the statement, "The United States recognized the Philippines as an independent state and established diplomatic relations with it in 1946. Except for the ǐ1942-45 Japanese occupation during World War II, the Philippines had been under U.S. administration since the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898."
- I believe that other sources in a similar vein exist.
Fourth, Regarding your assertion that the Philippine government accepts June 12, 1898 as the establishment date of the Republic of the Philippines as an independent sovereign state (I've sharpened up the wording there, but that is how I understand your assertion), you cited in support "List of nationwide holidays for 2016". Official Gazzette of the Philippine Government. August 26, 2015. This source lists, "June 12, 2016, Sunday – Independence Day (Regular holiday)." I don't dispute that June 12, 2016 will be celebrated in the Philippines as a holiday named "Independence Day". I dispute, however, that this constitutes an assertion by the Philippine Government that the Philippines became established as an independent sovereign state on June 12, 1898 (please see WP:OR, an English WP policy which says, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. [...] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.). For some background on this, please refer to the Philippine Declaration of Independence and Independence Day (Philippines) articles, and sources cited in those articles.
Fifth, I want to note here that a substantive change in the Wikipedia editorial consensus regarding the point under discussion here will impact a number of articles. Some examples are:
- The Philippines entry in List of sovereign states by date of formation
- Philippines related entries in List of historical unrecognized states and dependencies
- Philippine-American War
- History of the Philippines (1898-1946)
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC) I am revisiting this to do some housekeeping.
I am currently experiencing very poor internet connectivity -- it can take five minutes or more for a page load. Because of this, I failed to notice that you were edit-warring over this change and instead based my response above presuming that you were proceeding using BRD procedures. I am going to revert the article to a state consistent with BRD procedurees.
- The article was in a state relative to the change under discussion where it had been stable for some time and where it was in internal agreement and generally in agreement with other Wikipedia articles.
- You bade a Bold change in Revision as of 21:45, August 29, 2015, without any explanation.
- I Reverted your change in Revision as of 23:17, August 29, 2015, explaining my revesion in the edit summary.
- I created this talk page section and initiated a WP:BRD Discussion here regarding the reverted bold change at 00:11, 30 August 2015.
- You edited the article in Revision as of 01:50, August 30, 2015, initiating an edit war over the change. You did provide a not-very-helpful edit summary.
- At 02:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC), you responded above to the comment I had placed here after my BRD Revert. In that response, you provided some links which de-mystified your remarks in the edit summary of youredit-warring article edit.
- At 23:15, 30 August 2015, I responded to your comment here. As a part of that response, I explained why the links you had provided did not provide sufficient support to justify your change. When I made that response, I had failed to notice your edit-warring article edit, and mistakenly thanked you for following the BRD methodology to establish editorial consensus.
- Now, a bit later, I have seen your edit-warring edit.
Here, I have revertedd the part of the article content which is relevant to this discussion to its state after the BRD Revert, which is the state in which it ought to remain until this BRD Discussion phase reaches consensus. Here, I have placed a Disruptive Editing warning on your user talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, please read Politics and the English language by George Orwell and respond in a concise manner. Barely read the paragraphs above but not going to be intimidated. The typos are intentional? Mockery? Few points:
- There are errors on the dates listed. Factual. Not going to fix because works in favor.
- The Declarative theory of statehood only requires the declaration of independence, a permanent population, an authority, and a defined territory, all were fulfilled by the Filipinos on June 12, 1898. The other dates are merely tangents.
- What else?
- The 2013 memo by Secretary Kerry explicitly states the "115th declaration" of independence so there are no words minced there.
- The four articles listed would be barely affected by this change. Multiple dates are need to give context in the date of formation article, the Philippines would remain unrecognized until 1946 so the second one is intact, the last two are completely independent on whatever perspective a person has on June 12, 1898. Recognition itself is not needed for statehood given the history the U.S. had on its own date of independence.
- Please respond in a concise manner, the gist can be understood in fewer words.
- The Denali thing is auspicious, just wait.
Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not a scholarly discussion of abtuse political thought as it involves the establishment and recognition of nationhood. This is a discussion of the real-world history of the establishment of Philippine nationhood and the question of how that ought to be reflected in the infobox of this article. Your change (twice reverted here) is simply not compatible with and is contrary to that actual real-world history. This and other Wikipedia articles which touch on the matter need to reflect the actual real-world history.
Kerry's congratulatory press releases simply got the characterization of the holiday which was the subject of those congratulations wrong. Taking Kerry's errors there as a reversal of the longstanding U.S. understanding of the situation simply gives more weight to Kerry's erroneous characterizations than they deserve. Kerry's press releases perhaps ought to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia along with other U.S. State Department issuances which contradict them (I've linked a couple of those above: [1], [2], but this article is not the place to do that.
I apologize for any errors in the dates I cut & pasted in above. I was trying hard to get it right, but I was working with a slow and balky internet connection. Re spelling errors and typos, I'm a pretty crappy proofreader at the best of times but my proofreading above was below standard even for me as I was concerned that my internet connection might go down without me being able to post anything at all.
Can we call a halt on this for now? If not, what do you suggest? WP:Third opinion?
I haven't read that 1946 George Orwell essay you pointed to, but I expect to enjoy reading it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is fairly clear that the Philippines is now independent and has been since 1946. Prior to that, the Philippines was ruled by the United States as a colony (with a short stint under Japan), and the U.S. fought a war to make sure it was a colony. I realize that people forget that. People talk as if the American colonial period was not in fact a colonial period. It was. The Philippines was not independent until 1946. And America from 1898 to (choose your date) fought a war to ensure that. There was an attempt to create an independent state but like so many attempts in the world, it was violently put down by an imperial power. Let's not whitewash history. Independence is meaningful, not symbolic. Independence requires more than a simple declaration; it requires international recognition. Like so many independence movements, the one that is responsible for the Philippine Declaration of Independence failed. The struggle for sovereignty, for independence, was a long one in the Philippines (and some would say it is not over). That's the history. The Declaration of Independence was a high point in the Philippine struggle for independence but that effort did not succeed -- the Americans violently defeated it. Now maybe there is a third option to talking about this as Wtmitchell suggests. I, for one, am not willing to sweep America's imperialism under the rug. If we can find a solution that does not do that, that clearly states the Philippines was a colony of the U.S. for nearly two generations, I would accept a third solution --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't going to go anywhere. There should be a WP:Third opinion. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Third opinion is no longer an optionn. A key request criteria there is that the disagreement involve only two editors, and this discussion now involves more than just two. A wider discussion with the participation of more editors concerned with this article and/or with the point under discussion this article is preferable to an outside opinion, IMO. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- This isn't going to go anywhere. There should be a WP:Third opinion. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment. The longstanding consensus here is Independece Declared (from Spain) and Independence Recognized (from the United States). The British and Japanese occupations shouldn't even be mentioned as 1) those were short err "occupations" with Spain and the US regaining their colony after those brief ventures, 2) The British and Japanese periods weren't colonial in nature in the strict sense of the term "colony", and 3) that's the most common / mainstream interpretation of the formation of our country.--RioHondo (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't read the entire discussion, but if we're talking about the infobox's "Independence" section, it has way too many entries. The United States article has five entries, the Philippines has eight. Let's limit it to these four or five, and please, use MDY:
- Spanish conquest: April 27, 1565
- Declaration of Independence: June 12, 1898
- Self government: March 24, 1934 (optional)
- Treaty of Manila: July 4, 1946
- Current constitution: February 2, 1987
- For some reason, I really don't understand why we should include the British occupation. It's a footnote to history, yet we're debating if it should be at the infobox. Is it that important? –HTD 21:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The British invasion is important for two things:
-
- Gabriela Silang
- Spanish rule was in interrupted
-
- The bigger problem is not the the establishment dates but the footnotes at the bottom. The info about the Treaty of Paris is not that important since it is also listed in the article. The accusation that the Philippine Declaration was is not the actual date of sovereignty is evidence of WP:BIAS. The Montevideo Convention clearly states that recognition is not required to achieve sovereignty. Without the 1898 declaration, the Philippine state will not exist since the flag and the national anthem are from that era. If the United States did possess irrevocable sovereignty over the islands then the Philippine-American War is unnecessary because the population would accept them voluntarily. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, the list of establish_eventN parameters in the infobox is probably too detailed as it stands now. WRT to what the discussion is about, it grew out of this revert of a change which would have asserted that Philippine sovereignty grew out of (and only out of) the 1898 Philippine Declaration of Independence (PDI), which is a politically popular position among nationalistic Filipinos, but which has no historical/factual basis AFAICS. WRT your suggested list, the PDI was not an establishment event -- if it is included in this list of establish_eventN parameters, that needs a clarifying/explanatory footnote. The Tydings-McDuffie Act, which you list as a sub-item under the PDI and call "Self government" has no relationship whatever to the PDI. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I want to add mention of a bit of obiter dictum from "Advisory Opinion: Accordance with international law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosvo" (PDF). International Court of Justice Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders. International Court of Justice. 22 July 2010. ¶79.
During the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there were numerous instances of declarations of independence, often strenuously opposed by the State from which independence was being declared. Sometimes a declaration resulted in the creation of a new State, at others it did not.
AFAICS, the PDI did not result in the creation of a new State. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)- The Declarative theory of statehood does not require recognition as a basis for statehood. A state is created immediately after a declaration but the actual conception can take years/decades/centuries. That is why Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is listed in the List of sovereign states even though it virtually does not exist. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- First, my apologies, I changed the infobox before I noticed that it was part of this discussion. Feel free to revert. You can read my edit summary. I think that an infobox should be short listing only those events of especially high importance. I don't think the date of the Commonwealth reaches that level -- there was a significant amount of self-governance before the Commonwealth, including fully elected national legislative body. I also prefer de facto dates over de jure dates; I prefer reality over theory. May 1 is a better date for when the US acquired the Philippines from Spain. That was the date when the US took control from Spain. The December date is only when they got around to making it official (sort of). The Americans controlled Manila and therefore the Philippine government from the date that they controlled the bay, May 1. Certainly, they controlled the colonial government when they occupied Manila after the Battle of Manila. But even before that -- from May 1 on -- the colonial Spanish authorities had to do what the Americans said -- the most basic definition of sovereignty. (Of course controlling the government and controlling the entire country are two different issues, even today, see the Muslim and NPA rebellions.)
- Second, sovereignty is a fact, not a theory. Is a country independent? is a question of fact, of control -- not a question of declaration. For most places it is a fact easily determined -- this place rules itself, this place does not. However for some places and for some times, it is a gray area. For the Philippines the story is clear -- the Philippine Revolutionaries failed. They were defeated, by the United States, which killed tens of thousands (at least) to defeat them. The U.S. then ruled the Philippines as an imperial power. Why do people want to sweep American imperialism under the rug? Fact: the Philippines has not been independent since 1898. Fact: the Philippines has been independent since 1946. Let's deal with facts, not theories, not symbolism, not names of holidays, not mistakes on press releases. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- The Philippine revolutionaries actually succeeded because one of them became president. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- The assertion immediately above that Aguinaldo's insurgent revolutionaries succeeded because Quezon was elected President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935 is just too silly for words, so I won't comment on that.
-
- I will say that don't follow the logic behind the assertion that a the Montevideo Convention, an agreement reached in 1933 between countries in the Americas, somehow impacted the question of whether the PDI in 1898 resulted in the establishment of an independent country. That said, I also note that the PDI grew out of armed revolution, and Article 11 of the Montevideo Convention prohibits using military force to gain recognition of sovereignty (well, that's what the WP article about it says; actually, it prohibits those States in the Americas which would agree to it in 1933 from recognizing territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained by force.). Actually, though, the PDI apparently didn't grow out of very much armed revolution; Aguinaldo arrived in the Philippines to re-ignite the revolution on May 19 and the PDI was declared on June 12 -- less than a month later. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I'm OK with accepting the establishment_eventN parameters in the current article version for now, though I think that they distort reality. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- The case of Quezon -- and even more so Gen. Martin Teofilo Delgado who was rebel leader (of the Federal Republic of the Visayas) one month (Feb. '01) and then appointed Iloilo governor the next (nearly, Apr. '01) -- or Ramón Avanceña also of the Federal Republic, who was appointed Attorney General of the American colonial government and then to the Supreme Court becoming Chief Justice in 1924 -- demonstrates why Aguinaldo and the Revolutionaries lost. Why fight when you can use other means, albeit slower, to obtain most of what you want? Remember Americans were not universally behind the effort to rule the Philippines. The Treaty of Paris barely passed the U.S. Senate and only after McKinley did some serious arm-twisting. Remember too that shortly after 1898, Americans started holding municipal and provincial elections and appointing Filipinos to key positions and in 1907 the first fully elected national legislative body Philippine Assembly was established (under strict rules and with the appointed Philippine Commission as the upper legislative body). The American Federal Government followed a classic divide-and-conquer strategy. The Philippine revolutionaries lost. The Philippines did not become independent in 1898 and was not independent for 50 years. But their idea survived and prospered. Eventually the Philippines became independent. This is why June 12, 1898 is celebrated as one of the most important days in Philippine history, as the Philipines national day. While it is not the actual date that the Philippines gained its independence, it is a very important date in the fight for independence and in the growth of Philippine Nationalism. Just like Canada Day, Canada's national day (Canada celebrates no holiday called "independence day"). --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Did the U.S. gain independence in July 4, 1776? Or in September 3, 1783 after the American Revolutionary War when the U.K. lost and recognized their independence through the Treaty of Paris (1783)? Anyway, the current version is fine as it indicates the only important dates, the actual independence and the declaration that led to that event.--RioHondo (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Independence is a process and every country is unique. We should not attempt too strongly to fit history into distinct little descriptions like "independence". Just try to answer the question: How many countries are there in the world today? Every organization has a different answer, from the UN to the Olympics. The answer is not clear because one cannot take humanity and force it into nice, clear, black-and-white categories, the type of categories that lawyers and bureaucrats like. American Independence also established a new tradition -- the declaration. There was none before and after nearly all such movements issue declarations. At the time that the committee to draft a declaration was established by the Second Continental Congress two other committees would also be established -- to draft a constitution and to establish foreign relations. The declaration committee, the least important, most of whose work was done by a junior member of the congress Thomas Jefferson, finished its work first. The other two committees also succeeded, one in getting France on board and the other in drafting the Articles of Confederation. Unlike the case in the Philippines, there is a continuity between the Second Continental Congress and the first federal government under the Articles of Confederation. The former created and flowed into that latter. Unlike the case in the Philippines, there has been a continuum between 1776 (or if you prefer 1775) and today. No "foreign" power has been sovereign over the United States. If that is the measure of "independence" than one can safely say that the U.S. has been independent since 1776. I think that should be the measure -- real power over territory -- and not what some lawyer or a piece of paper says. The Philippines has not been independent since 1898. It was conquered and ruled by the U.S. The US has been independent since 1776. It has never been ruled by anyone else since then. (The case for US independence is further strengthened by the fact that the Second Continental Congress consisted of delegates sent by elected colonial governments who had been around for over 150 years in some cases. The US declaration was not a declaration by self-declared revolutionaries creating a new government from scratch but by delegates from long-existing governments. The American Revolution did not create new governments but rather took existing democratic governments and made them independent of Britain.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Although, if you want to be precise and be able to connect the events of 1898 and 1946, you might want to also indicate the date when the 1898 independence declaration was Recognized by Spain (there could be a better term) with a note: (Handed over to the United States) similar to Cuba's experience after the Spanish-American War. This is just optional of course, but I think it would at least put some sense and chronology to those events.--RioHondo (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- The cases of Cuba and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War are quite different. Spain did not cede Cuba to the U.S. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Puerto Rico calls it Cession from Spain. I just thought it might be important to mention this event and transition that occured in December 10, 1898 just as Puerto Rico and Cuba did so that readers can get a clearer idea of how the declaration of Independence from Spain has gone to independence being recognized by the US 48 years later.--RioHondo (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with that, of course, and I'm sure that you must be aware of this, is that it invites the false inference that the cession was from Spain to Puerto Rico and not from Spain to the U.S. -- just as a similar characterization re the Philippines would invite the false inference that the cession was from Spain to the Philippines and not from Spain to the U.S.
- Puerto Rico calls it Cession from Spain. I just thought it might be important to mention this event and transition that occured in December 10, 1898 just as Puerto Rico and Cuba did so that readers can get a clearer idea of how the declaration of Independence from Spain has gone to independence being recognized by the US 48 years later.--RioHondo (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- The cases of Cuba and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War are quite different. Spain did not cede Cuba to the U.S. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Did the U.S. gain independence in July 4, 1776? Or in September 3, 1783 after the American Revolutionary War when the U.K. lost and recognized their independence through the Treaty of Paris (1783)? Anyway, the current version is fine as it indicates the only important dates, the actual independence and the declaration that led to that event.--RioHondo (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- The case of Quezon -- and even more so Gen. Martin Teofilo Delgado who was rebel leader (of the Federal Republic of the Visayas) one month (Feb. '01) and then appointed Iloilo governor the next (nearly, Apr. '01) -- or Ramón Avanceña also of the Federal Republic, who was appointed Attorney General of the American colonial government and then to the Supreme Court becoming Chief Justice in 1924 -- demonstrates why Aguinaldo and the Revolutionaries lost. Why fight when you can use other means, albeit slower, to obtain most of what you want? Remember Americans were not universally behind the effort to rule the Philippines. The Treaty of Paris barely passed the U.S. Senate and only after McKinley did some serious arm-twisting. Remember too that shortly after 1898, Americans started holding municipal and provincial elections and appointing Filipinos to key positions and in 1907 the first fully elected national legislative body Philippine Assembly was established (under strict rules and with the appointed Philippine Commission as the upper legislative body). The American Federal Government followed a classic divide-and-conquer strategy. The Philippine revolutionaries lost. The Philippines did not become independent in 1898 and was not independent for 50 years. But their idea survived and prospered. Eventually the Philippines became independent. This is why June 12, 1898 is celebrated as one of the most important days in Philippine history, as the Philipines national day. While it is not the actual date that the Philippines gained its independence, it is a very important date in the fight for independence and in the growth of Philippine Nationalism. Just like Canada Day, Canada's national day (Canada celebrates no holiday called "independence day"). --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I will say that don't follow the logic behind the assertion that a the Montevideo Convention, an agreement reached in 1933 between countries in the Americas, somehow impacted the question of whether the PDI in 1898 resulted in the establishment of an independent country. That said, I also note that the PDI grew out of armed revolution, and Article 11 of the Montevideo Convention prohibits using military force to gain recognition of sovereignty (well, that's what the WP article about it says; actually, it prohibits those States in the Americas which would agree to it in 1933 from recognizing territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained by force.). Actually, though, the PDI apparently didn't grow out of very much armed revolution; Aguinaldo arrived in the Philippines to re-ignite the revolution on May 19 and the PDI was declared on June 12 -- less than a month later. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I'm OK with accepting the establishment_eventN parameters in the current article version for now, though I think that they distort reality. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- For reference, the following is quoted from the initial three articles of the treaty:
-
-
-
-
-
Article I. Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba.And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property.
Article II. Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.
Article III. Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line: [details elided]
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Also, when you speak of "a clearer idea of how the declaration of Independence from Spain has gone ...", you seem to be making a presumption that there is some causative connection between the PDI and Spain's 1898 cession of the Philippines to the U.S and/or to the 1946 U.S. recognition of the RP as an independent State. As far as I can see, no such causative connection exists. If you would imply such a connection, don't merely imply it -- assert it directly and cite supporting sources to support that assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I understand that if you had not attended a Philippine university or studied Philippine history as a required course, that you might not be as knowledgeable with regards to these things. Of course, the 1898 Treaty of Paris came as a result of the Philippine Revolution which, with the help of the U.S. under George Dewey resulted in Spain's defeat and the establishment of the First Philippine Republic with Emilio Aguinaldo as president.1. Of course, things turned out differently when Aguinaldo, who was promised US support for independence from Spain, learned that the US actually intended to stay and govern the islands. But the Philippine Revolution saw Spain losing to the Filipino revolutionaries first, and upon learning of US intention, decided to negotiate with them for surrender instead. So there was clear recognition on the part of the Spanish that they were relinquishing control of the islands through the treaty, and that's what I would like to include so that we're clear with respect to how the US who granted our independence in 1946 entered the picture first. And likewise, when Spain who the Philippines initally declared independence from actually officially had left the picture, so that we're not just showing independence declared from this and independence recognized by that, as if Spanish and American control overlapped in the Phils at one point. This is all mainstream knowledge though.--RioHondo (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- First it is entirely unnecessary for one to have "attended a Philippine university or studied Philippine history as a required course" to be knowledgeable of facts. Many have argued, with some evidence, that many Philippine schools and Philippine textbooks are of poor quality. Many courses are taught by bad teachers or are agenda-laden, and textbooks filled with errors. There are numerous very good books and other sources out there that one can get a better education from. Learning by sitting in a classroom is often inferior to reading several books. Second, we need to be careful with such statements. They can strike readers as bigoted against those who do not share a particular skin color or ethnicity. History is history. Truth is truth. Skin color and ethnicity -- along with where or even if one went to school -- is irrelevant. Third, such statements often come across as trying to shut people up without addressing whether what they are saying are true or not. Truth is what matters, not the education, ethnicity or skin color of the speaker or writer. I would argue that such statements are not in keeping with the welcoming, open nature of Wikipedia.
- I understand that if you had not attended a Philippine university or studied Philippine history as a required course, that you might not be as knowledgeable with regards to these things. Of course, the 1898 Treaty of Paris came as a result of the Philippine Revolution which, with the help of the U.S. under George Dewey resulted in Spain's defeat and the establishment of the First Philippine Republic with Emilio Aguinaldo as president.1. Of course, things turned out differently when Aguinaldo, who was promised US support for independence from Spain, learned that the US actually intended to stay and govern the islands. But the Philippine Revolution saw Spain losing to the Filipino revolutionaries first, and upon learning of US intention, decided to negotiate with them for surrender instead. So there was clear recognition on the part of the Spanish that they were relinquishing control of the islands through the treaty, and that's what I would like to include so that we're clear with respect to how the US who granted our independence in 1946 entered the picture first. And likewise, when Spain who the Philippines initally declared independence from actually officially had left the picture, so that we're not just showing independence declared from this and independence recognized by that, as if Spanish and American control overlapped in the Phils at one point. This is all mainstream knowledge though.--RioHondo (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I would also disagree with the characterizations of the history above (e.g. "promised US support for independence from Spain", "Spain losing to the Filipino revolutionaries first", "as if Spanish and American control overlapped in the Phils at one point"), but that is irrelevant. It is not how we describe the history but how others do, specifically reliable, third-party sources.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with Wtmitchell. I have seen no reliable, third-party sources that have said there is a causal connection between the Philippine Declaration of Independence and Spain's cessation. The reliable sources that I read say that the Declaration came after Spain had been decisively defeated by the US Navy led by Dewey, on May 1, a month and a half before the Declaration. After the Battle of Manila Bay, Spain no longer had the material resources nor will (mostly, there were some Spaniards who fought) to fight to maintain Spanish rule and over the following months, Spanish officials across the Philippines largely gave up without a fight either to Americans or to local Filipinos. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Most history books Ive read mention an alliance between the Filipino revolutionaries in the provinces and the US in Manila under Dewey as the one that led to Spanish defeat and surrender. The declaration came in June 1898 when the US had not decided on the fate of the islands yet, which only came in December with President McKinley's Benevolent assimilation amidst protests from Democrats and the likes of Mark Twain. Outside Manila, the US-allied Filipino revolutionaries defeated the Spanish, and Spain herself recognized this, and was a factor in that decision to cede the Philippines. Have you heard of Los Ultimos de Filipinas and the Siege of Baler? Had the US not allied themselves to the Filipino revolutionaries, Spanish withdrawal and surrender could not have taken place sooner (or just an after thought, this could have been just an episode that the Spanish already saw before (British occupation of Manila part 2? with Anda setting up government in Pampanga with the help of Filipino allies). But the revolution that started in 1896 saw them losing the principalia one province to another which culminated in the June declaration. I thought this was common historical knowledge. :) Losing Manila by itself could not have expelled the Spanish that quickly, as they already lost Manila before.--RioHondo (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Anyway, your initial comments seemed off as there were quite a number of foreign students who received the same education as I did. This may have to do with the kind of text books we're reading. I suppose Agoncillo's or whatever his name was, was mainstream. Anyway, with or without the Independence declaration of 1898, I would have still voted to insert the 1898 Treaty of Paris just so our readers know when the US who granted the 1946 independence actually started controlling the islands from Spain, regardless of how connected, if at all, those events really were.--RioHondo (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Most history books Ive read mention an alliance between the Filipino revolutionaries in the provinces and the US in Manila under Dewey as the one that led to Spanish defeat and surrender." -- this I think is roughly accurate (one can quibble over the definition of "alliance", "defeat" and "surrender" but their use here is accurate if one uses the broader definition of the terms). The Siege of Baler is just about the only case of significant fighting between Spanish and Filipino forces after the Battle of Manila Bay that I am aware of. Most Spanish just gave up after the overwhelming defeat at the hands of Dewey. They recognized that without reinforcements, blocked by the US Navy, there was no way for them to defeat Filipinos or Americans. We need to remember that between the Pact of Biak-na-Bato and the Battle of Manila Bay there was not much if any Philippine revolutionary activity. By the beginning of 1898, Spain had defeated the Philippine Revolution (at least temporarily) and the leaders had fled into exile. Indeed, at the time of the Dewey's victory, the revolution was so dormant that Aguinaldo was on his way to Europe, going in the opposite direction. That is why he was in Singapore on May 1 and why it took him until mid-May to return to the Philippines aboard a US Navy ship. He first had to get back to Hong Kong and then hitch a ride.
- December 1898 was the date of the treaty but McKinley had decided months before to keep the entire Philippines and an election was held in November 1898, which McKinley won, during which the status of the Philippines was an issue. The treaty was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, with opposition coming from both parties. In 1898 the Republicans were the party of the Progressives. Then-former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt would go on the run in 1912 not as a Republican but as a candidate of the Progressive or Bull Moose party. The imperialist Progressive Republicans supported picking up the White Man's Burden (first published in New York during this period). The opposition was from anti-imperialist who opposed colonies of any sort, businessmen who thought that acquiring the Philippines wasn't worth its cost (we only needed a coaling station and port), and racists who didn't want the US to add more "n-----s" to the country. The Wikipedia article on the treaty put it this way: "In the U.S. Senate, there were four main schools of thought in regard to U.S. imperialism that influenced debate on ratification of the Treaty.[22] Republicans generally supported the treaty, while those opposed either aimed to defeat the treaty or exclude the provision stipulating the acquisition of the Philippines. Democrats in general favored expansion as well, particularly Southern Democrats. A minority of Democrats also favored the treaty on the basis of ending the war and granting independence to Cuba and the Philippines." Indeed it seems that one of those in the anti-imperialist camp may have been Dewey himself. He certainly made a few cryptic comments against the US making the Philippines a colony. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (inserted) This level of detail ought to be discussed on the talk pages of the relevant WP:SS detail articles and, if changes there result, changes with enough weight up here could be reflected here. Some comment --
- "McKinley had decided months before [before 12/1898] to keep the entire Philippines" -- The Treaty of Paris (1898) article says that in September 1898, McKinley issued instructions that "... the United States cannot accept less than the cession in full right and sovereignty of the island of Luzon ..." and on November 25, 1898 he issued instructions saying, "... to accept merely Luzon, leaving the rest of the islands subject to Spanish rule, or to be the subject of future contention, cannot be justified on political, commercial, or humanitarian grounds. The cessation must be the whole archipelago or none. The latter is wholly inadmissible, and the former must therefore be required."
- "Most history books Ive read mention an alliance between the Filipino revolutionaries in the provinces and the US in Manila under Dewey as the one that led to Spanish defeat and surrender." If supportable, that probably needs to lead to revions in the Spanish-American war article and some other detail articles. Without checking, I don't recall reading about much alliance between Dewey and rebels between his May 1 battle and May 19 when Dewey transported Aguinaldo back from Hong Kong or, for that matter, before the arrival of the first contingent of US ground troops on June 30 (see History of the Philippines (1898-1946)#U.S. preparation for land operations and resumption of the Philippine Revolution.
- "[Biak-na-Bato] leaders had fled into exile" -- Actually, and per several WP detail articles, shuttle diplomacy by Pedro Paterno resulted in the Pact of Biak-na-Bato in which the rebel leaders agreed to cease hostilities and go into exile in return for monetary compensation.
- "Aguinaldo was on his way to Europe, ... [t]hat is why he was in Singapore on May 1" -- I recall reading previously from one source or other that Aguiinaldo had traveled to Singapore to argue about money with a fellow exile who was living there instead of in Hong Kong, and that a British sometime journalist (named Bratt? Bray? something like that) spotted him on the street, engineered a meeting with US Consul Pratt and (because Aguinaldo didn't speak English and Pratt didn't speak Spanish) acted as a translator in the meeting. I couldn't quickly find any of that in the current version of relevant detail articles -- perhaps it has been edited out over the years. I could probably dig up the details and a source if I had to.
- Where I have mentioned specific articles above, look for details and supporting cites there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (inserted) This level of detail ought to be discussed on the talk pages of the relevant WP:SS detail articles and, if changes there result, changes with enough weight up here could be reflected here. Some comment --
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Fighting continued after the Battle of Manila Bay which led to even greater Spanish defeat in the hands of the Filipino revolutionaries, specifically during the Battle of Alapan, and other battles that liberated the provinces one by one. You see i am not making things up, its all over WP also. There was recognition on the part of the Spanish crown that they they were losing, not just to the US in Manila Bay but moreso in the rest of the Philippine provinces. Hence, the exit button: the Treaty of Paris 1898 where they got an even greater deal while saving their face.--RioHondo (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I made a top-of-head remark earlier in this discussion that probably not much revolutionary activity took place in the less-than-month between Aguinaldo's return and his Declaration of Independence. After looking at the links above, I guess I got that wrong. However (a big However), consider that because Dewey had cut the cable between Manila and Hong Kong (I won't support that here, but it is easy to support and is probably supported in a relevant detail article). Because of this, the Spanish Crown was unaware of the details of the fighting in the Philippines during this period. Being unaware of those details, the Spanish Crown could not have factored those details into their decision making. Please discuss this level of detail on the talk pages of detail articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:32, 10 Se
- Fighting continued after the Battle of Manila Bay which led to even greater Spanish defeat in the hands of the Filipino revolutionaries, specifically during the Battle of Alapan, and other battles that liberated the provinces one by one. You see i am not making things up, its all over WP also. There was recognition on the part of the Spanish crown that they they were losing, not just to the US in Manila Bay but moreso in the rest of the Philippine provinces. Hence, the exit button: the Treaty of Paris 1898 where they got an even greater deal while saving their face.--RioHondo (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Let me go further here. This discussion, which started out as an attempt to identify establishment events for the RP government, has meandered around to a discussion about what was in the minds of the movers and shakers in the Spanish government when they sued for peace in the Spanish-American war. I assert that the appropriate venue for such a discussion is the talk page of the Spanish-American war article -- not here. Specifically, we're talking about the Spanish-American war#Making peace section, about a document titled Protocol of Peace : Embodying the Terms of a Basis for the Establishment of Peace Between the Two Countries, which was signed in Washington D.C. on August 12, 1898 (see [3]), about what was in the minds of the persons who gave the signers of that document their instructions, and about what drove those persons to reach whatever conclusions they had reached by that time -- or about however much of that is supportable by verifiable reliable third-party secondary sources.
- Please, let's drop this discussion here and restart it, if appropriate, in a more suitable venue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Speaking to Iloilo Wanderer's mention of an American "effort to rule the Philippines", I don't think there was ever much official intention in that regard. First Philippine Commission's 2 November 1899 report said, "... Only through American occupation, therefore, is the idea of a free, self-governing, and united Philippine commonwealth at all conceivable." (see [4] and elsewhere). The 1916 Philippine Autonomy Act contained a formal and official declaration of the United States Federal Government's commitment to grant independence to the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that my statement contrasts or contradicts what Wtmitchell highlights. The general policy of the U.S. is fairly consistent: to rule the Philippines until the Philippines was able to govern itself, specifically to bit by bit give Filipinos more and more control over their own lives and in so doing build up the institutions and provide Filipinos the experience needed to govern.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking to Iloilo Wanderer's mention of an American "effort to rule the Philippines", I don't think there was ever much official intention in that regard. First Philippine Commission's 2 November 1899 report said, "... Only through American occupation, therefore, is the idea of a free, self-governing, and united Philippine commonwealth at all conceivable." (see [4] and elsewhere). The 1916 Philippine Autonomy Act contained a formal and official declaration of the United States Federal Government's commitment to grant independence to the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
Information about water supply and sanitation added[edit]
We had added a link and information about water supply and sanitation in the Philippines. This was deleted by Moxy due to an alleged copyright allegation. Mschiffler has responded to that on the talk page of Moxy. He said the copying had occurred in the other direction, i.e. FROM the Wikipedia page to that other website. Therefore, I have undeleted the information in this article. If this needs further discussion, let's do it here (rather than on the talk page of Moxy). Also, please show me where such copyright violation allegations were made (you, Moxy, gave the Philippines case as one example, are there more?) - so that we can check them one by one. Chances are that more often than not, the copying occurred in the other direction as those country profiles for water and sanitation were done very dilligently by the Wikipedians involved. Thanks. EvM-Susana (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Copy and pasting from other articles is ok (not the best thing to do) but as long attribution is given as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. -- Moxy (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"Classical Era" part 2[edit]
A user (Philipandrew2) insists on using this label to refer to the History of the Philippines prior to Spanish colonization. As per consensus from the earlier discussion at WT:TAMBAY, the term Classical pertains mostly to early Greco-Roman civilization, is therefore Eurocentric, and goes against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY for anyone who's studied Philippine history. Discuss below.--RioHondo (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- But Classical Era has also used by Chinese , Mongolia And Japan even Cambodian History it self
- it Refers the perspective on the side of "the native citizens which lived on a country, the (Pre-Colonial) is a views on the the Colonialist perspective which is saying a resounding Philippines is only Discovered by the Colonialists but they have already cultures advance culture and tradition. so what should be to call it ? (Philipandrew2 (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC))
- Furthermore : IM open to a Debate here 2 , 3 , or ten person who will disscus. (Philipandrew2 (talk))
- Heres my Example [[5]] is any country which is colonized called their eras of Perspective is "PRE- Spanish" "Pre- FRENCH?" or Pre- English?
it is starting Early history to be in neutral perspective Early history of Cambodia(Philipandrew2 (talk))
-
- Let's not discuss the way the Chinese call their periods. WP:RS on the Philippines please. And no need for separate discussion on our user talk pages. Thanks. Btw, from the Oxford Dictionary: classical.--RioHondo (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
comment: The article titles were clear and unambiguous when they were based on date ranges (back before this discussion).
While I'm commenting, I'll mention, "Comments are indented using one or more initial colons (:) or, on some pages, asterisks (*). Generally colons and asterisks should not be mixed." and, "The first comment in a section will have no colons (or one asterisk - see below) before it." from WP:THREAD. Personally, I think that asterisk indenting on talk pages is confusing and a mix of colons and asterisks is really confusing. Since this section seems to use a style of asterisks except at the zero-indent level, that's what I've tried to use here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
-
- Actually, they all still are titled with the date ranges, History of the Philippines (900–1521), History of the Philippines (1521–1898) and History of the Philippines (1898–1946). Problem is with their labels or their descriptions in other articles such as this. Afaik, the common (i.e, mainstream) descriptions for those periods are still "American period", "Spanish period", "pre-Spanish period" etc. This is basic history, any Filipino person on the streets knows this. Not "Classical", "Early Modern", "Late Modern" or whatever. Those date ranges were not randomly picked, they are not incidental. What happened before 1521 is what happened before the Spanish colonists arrived. Hence, pre-Spanish or pre-colonial era. That is its WP:COMMONNAME, and the articles themselves are clear on this. E.g, it says in the lead This article covers the history of the Philippines from the creation of the Laguna Copperplate Inscription in 900 AD to the arrival of European explorer Ferdinand Magellan in 1521, which marks the beginning of the Spanish Colonial period. I don't see anything classical about that.--RioHondo (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Then I think we must move this era to Early History as a neutral perspective so it would proper to highlight the civility of the Ancient Filipino Society before the Colonialists come to the philippine shore .(Philipandrew2 (talk))
- Kindly desist from editing the labels while we haven't arrived with a new consensus here. Any reliable sources for this new term you are promoting? Btw, look where Early history redirects to.--RioHondo (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, let's desist from editing until we have reconfirmed or changed the current consensus.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Kindly desist from editing the labels while we haven't arrived with a new consensus here. Any reliable sources for this new term you are promoting? Btw, look where Early history redirects to.--RioHondo (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Then I think we must move this era to Early History as a neutral perspective so it would proper to highlight the civility of the Ancient Filipino Society before the Colonialists come to the philippine shore .(Philipandrew2 (talk))
-
Philipandrew2 asked "is any country which is colonized called their eras of Perspective is "PRE- Spanish" "Pre- FRENCH?" or Pre- English?" The answer: Yes, the countries of the Americas describes their history with the term Pre-Columbian era, referring to Columbus. There is also "Pre-Roman" as in Pre-Roman England, Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, Pre-Roman Iron Age, Timeline of pre-Roman Iberian history, etc. There is also "pre-colonial": Pre-colonial history of Zimbabwe, List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa, Pre-colonial Timor, Canary Islands in pre-colonial times, etc. But more importantly, why do the practices of other countries matter? We are talking about Philippine history. Each countries' history is different, unique, and the Philippines is too. The question is not "How do people in other countries' talk about their countries' history?" but rather "How do most people -- within and without the Philippines -- talk about Philippine history?" What are the common names used for the periods of Philippine history? It is not up to us to determine the names of the eras. We just report what reliable, third parties use. All of this has been discussed over at WT:TAMBAY of Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Please add comments there.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- As i observed, the Articles you gave me there are still having flaws corresponding on the example as you give me like the Prehistoric Britain, as i observed they use the Classical period on their time periods, (as the other user said Classical is only used by romans and greeks) and later they used "Post-Roman" after the classical period (corresponding on the table plus the segment of the article contained post-roman) And the List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa , Since Africa is a Continent not a country, So we all know that their have been westerners exploring continents specially in S.E. Asia in fact i can call it "Pre-Colonial S.E. Asia" for that statement. (Philipandrew2 (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC))
-
-
-
-
- Britain is part of western civilization that traces its history to the ancient Greeks and Romans, is it not? So why insist on using European periodizations? Again, I am still waiting for your reliable sources. Nobody cares if China calls the Cold War period the American Evil Era, so stop comparing and just show your sources for these, otherwise this is all WP:OR on your part.--RioHondo (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was replying specifically to Philipandrew2's question was about the formulation "pre-(fill in the conqueror)", not to the use of "classical", and therefore the example "pre-Roman" (and "pre-Columbian" and other examples). Of course Britain uses "Classical". It was Roman, part of the Roman Empire. When used -- which is rare since "Roman Britain" is preferred -- "classical" only refers to that period of Roman control, not to Britain's pre-history, including "classic architecture" and related topics. I won't delve into whether the article List of kingdoms in pre-colonial Africa is on point or not. It's not really central and there are plenty of other examples. Certainly it helps strengthen the "yes" to the question of whether the formulation "pre-(conqueror)" was used but I'll concede that it is about a continent and therefore not directly on point. It's tangential. As for the larger issue, I think that we have established (1) that people do use the "pre-(conqueror)" formulation and (2) that "pre-Spanish" and "pre-Hispanic" are common names for the period before 1521. Can we say there is a WP:Consensus on both points? What has not been established is that "classical" is used commonly to apply to the Philippines? Like RioHondo, I await reliable WP:Third party sources. Once that we have established that "classical" is commonly used, we can then discuss which is more common, i.e. more likely to appear in textbooks, in newspapers, in everyday conversation. So, two more points on which we need to reach consensus. Therefore, what reliable sources are there demonstrate wide, common usage of "classical" when talking of Philippine history? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Britain is part of western civilization that traces its history to the ancient Greeks and Romans, is it not? So why insist on using European periodizations? Again, I am still waiting for your reliable sources. Nobody cares if China calls the Cold War period the American Evil Era, so stop comparing and just show your sources for these, otherwise this is all WP:OR on your part.--RioHondo (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Wikipedia good articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs
- Geography and places good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class Philippine-related articles
- Top-importance Philippine-related articles
- GA-Class Cold War articles
- Mid-importance Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- GA-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- GA-Class Southeast Asia articles
- Top-importance Southeast Asia articles
- GA-Class Spain articles
- High-importance Spain articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- Mid-importance United States articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Islands articles
- WikiProject Islands articles
- GA-Class Version 0.5 articles
- Geography Version 0.5 articles
- Wikipedia CD Selection
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Geography
- Wikipedia GA-Class vital articles in Geography
- Wikipedia GA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia articles that use Philippine English
- Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
- Spoken Wikipedia requests
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists