Talk:Philippines/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

Establishment

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. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) 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:

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)

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:
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:
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)
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)
I read WP:WT and WP:YMFTT before deciding to add comment here.
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.
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 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)
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
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)

Information about water supply and sanitation added

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

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2015

I would like to make a request to edit this page. My edits will be constructive and not vandalism

OofTD (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

I Have notice an error in changing the gpd for 2016 . Kindly check the economy of the philippines and see the difference. If the 'economy of the philippines' information is correct and not the gdp 2016 then i would like to request you to edit or if you dont mind i could change it instantly. Jeff10952 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 22:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015

I would like to make a request to edit this page. My edits will be constructive and true OofTD (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2015

I would like to make a request to edit the page with constructive and without vandalism OofTD (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --Stabila711 (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

1946

This is unnecessary and already found in the body. This gas also been the topic of past disputes and keeping it will just keep this article controversial. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The Philippine government uses the 1898 for "Independence Day." Until the Philippines starts celebrating it again on the 1946 date then the year can go back to the top but until then it must remain only in the bidy paragraphs. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
To highlight the problem even further, it was on the wrong year (1945) for over a whole month before anyone noticed it. So, yeah, it is problematic. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinoy

Pinoy. Can you add it in Demonym field? It is also a demonym for the Philippines, a diminutive of a demonym, Filipino. Jumark27 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The Philippines as a tributary states to China which was ruled by "Huangs"?

(NOTE: This information is located under Pre-colonial Period.)

Can anyone clarify what exactly did they mean when they refer to "Huangs?". Because I seriously thought it was like a royal title not usually used but are actually correct (like the "Ptolemy", which was actually used as a royal title). But I googled about Huangs and it did not show up any meaning at all related to a title for that timeline. The closest I got was 'Huángdì', but even that only exclusively refers to the Emperor of China during the Qin dynasty (221 BC or year negative 221). That is so far back from the 900 AD!

Can somebody at least make that information (under pre-colonial period) accurate and laymen for common people? Because it truly sounds like a word filler in there even for academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.48.151 (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

Please UPDATE the Military Section of the Philippines.Please place tThe Philippines had bought 1 squadron or 12 units of F16-V Fighting Falcon "Viper" Jet this 2015 please update it.Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiMario (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Do you wish this text: One squadron of twelve F16-V Fighting Falcon "Viper" jets were purchased in 2015. inserted ?
If this text is incorrect, please clarify.
Also, where exactly do you wish it inserted? Remember that this is an article about the whole country of the Philippines and the section about the military is necessarily brief. It is not obvious to me that there is any appropriate place in the article to insert it.
In any case I will need reliable sources to be cited to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. BushelCandle (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. (BushelCandle (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC))

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

American suppression of rebellious sub-states

Here, I have boldly edited the part of the article which read:
The Americans then suppressed the sub-states the First Republic had fractured into
to instead read:
The Americans then suppressed other rebellious sub-states

The WP articles on the sub-states mentioned contradict the notion that they formed from parts of a broken-up First Philippine Republic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that's more accurate, Bill.
Sadly the realized dream of an independent First Republic never really extended much beyond Luzon; the US made its colonial grab too quickly for the First Philippine Republic to effectively administer much of the territory that the Spanish had so shortly before formally relinquished. BushelCandle (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous population as of 2010??

The current revision shows a dubious total population of 92,337,852 as of 2010. The official count according to the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) website shows 92,335,113. After fixing the Philippine regions in the past days, I have confirmed that the total should really be 92,335,113. You may want to check the bottom of the official NSCB web page and the administrative table of the Philippine regions to confirm the correct computation. Sanglahi86 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hidden categories

There are multiple hidden categories listed and I was trying to sort these out. These include:
  • "All articles lacking reliable references"
  • "Articles lacking reliable references from November 2014"
  • "All articles containing potentially dated statements"
  • "Articles containing potentially dated statements from December 2014"
  • "Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2015"
  • "Articles needing additional references from November 2015"
  • "All articles needing additional references"
  • "Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2009"
  • "Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2007"
  • "All articles with failed verification"
  • "Articles with failed verification from February 2016"
  • "Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2011"
The "Hydrology" section has a needs additional citations tag at the top dated November 2015 even though there is a reference for each paragraph.
The "Ethnic groups" section has a not in citation given tag dated Feb. 2016.
This article is VERY VERY large, listed as a good article, and I probably missed something. Could someone point out what I missed or does all the hidden categories result from two tags? I was looking to address the tags but the above has dates from 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014, as well as 2015 and 2016. Otr500 (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference issues

In the Ethnic groups subsection there is a reference to Futurescopes.com (Indian Dating and Matchmaking in Philippines – Indian Matrimonials) - January 3, 2011; Retrieved on July 4, 2012, that is questionable. It is a date site, with links to many other date sites, and the editor is anonymous. I posted this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Questionable source for other opinions. Otr500 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Leaving RS issues aside to be addressed at RSN, this seems to have come into the article with this June 25, 2012 edit by User:Itomo14. It is currently cited in support of an assertion saying that intermarriage between ethnic Chinese and Filipino groups is evident in the major cities and urban areas. Other sources (e.g. [6]) could support a similar assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I listed here for transparency, since RS issues are actually the concern, and in case consensus might decide there are better references. The way it looks to me anyone can post anonymously to a site like that and then use the "reference" other places like here. We have no way to know this except going to other references, which sort of defeats the purpose, and likely why we prefer "reliable sources". I am just trying to resolve root causes of the above listed issues in hopes of preventing a possible move for article demotion. If it should be found to be a reliable source then that can be taken off the list of issues. Otr500 (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • And it was not found to be reliable: If someone wants to add the reliable source above that would be good. Otr500 (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this article protectd for so many years ?

Why is "Classical Kingdoms and City-states" hyperlink appearing under a heading of "Independence from Spainc and the United States" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.138.170 (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't answer your first question - certainly it does seem contrary to our slogan that anyone can (in principle) edit.
As to the second, as of my edit at 19:50, 10 May 2016 the misleading heading is no longer there (and other improvements have been made). However, there are lots of people editing this article whose knowledge of both English and Wikipedia policies are rather poor and there is no guarantee that the article will not be quickly degraded. BushelCandle (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

ZAMBOANGUEÑO ETHNIC

There is a wrong Ethnographic representation for the Zamboangueño Location. The Ethnographic location for the Zamboangueño Majority Territory are as follows: Zamboanga City, Lamitan City and Isabela City, ONLY. Please check this link: (1) https://www.facebook.com/LenguaCriolla/photos/pb.577653682349457.-2207520000.1463160457./578685868912905/?type=3&size=2048%2C1325&fbid=578685868912905 (2) https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/983626_577669875681171_4674552614716085342_n.jpg?oh=a59031103c755a22ebf70b29375d63f9&oe=57A5E355

I hope the author of this article will correct this wrong information.185.36.91.21 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There are many authors of this article, but I'll take a look at what you write... BushelCandle (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Later: Since I can't see any recent references to this topic in our Philippines article, you may want to bring up this topic at Talk:Zamboangueño people where you can also edit the Zamboangueño people article directly yourself... BushelCandle (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

the good thing

Because the "some"users are not fully awarded of the full history of the Philippines. Instead they write the entire history of the classical kingdoms and states they just simply put "independence from US " ....they don't aware of every southeast Asian countries start their history through kingdoms and city States ...they just intensified the colonization and the independece given by us that's why our history is "incomplete" For example (im sure) the Myanmar (Burma) started as a city States also , because of their multiple kingdoms they still called Burma .. Or Unless that city States era should not be called Burma (Myanmar ) since the city states existing yet .until only when the British granted their independence. Its the same goes exactly to Philippines too which having the multi ethnic kingdoms and city States .and colonized but now I'm happy on what isee now in a "proper "way of telling the history .right to the point of origin

Further more, When you said "the history was started on the intensified Colonization matter, then you disregarded the facts of these classical states and kingdoms whenever they are divided, they still on the Philippine Archipelago, So it still what makes up the Philippines history.

So, this notion on the infobox was contradicting to the Pre colonial notion which is written! (which is actually a classical period similar to the Neighboring S.E.Asian countries around the Philippines).

(Philipandrew2 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC))

Proper way of telling the history (like the most of southeast asian neighbors) /colonialism Matter intensified

"some"users are not fully awarded of the full history of the Philippines. Instead they write the entire history of the classical kingdoms and states they just simply put "independence from US " ....they don't aware of every southeast Asian countries start their history through kingdoms and city States ...they just intensified the colonization and the independece given by United States that's why our history is incomplete! Further more, When you said "the history was started on the intensified Colonization matter, then you disregarded the facts of these classical states and kingdoms whenever they are divided, they still on the Philippine Archipelago, So it still what makes up the Philippines history

So, this notion on the Terms was contradicting to the Pre colonial notion which is written as the article talked about. theirs so many sources to be reference. ..unless they removed the references and reverted it

  • their so many Reference and Citations which we can Read ! i will cite if users will questioned it !

(Philipandrew2 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC))

Pre-colonial history

Please discuss this first before changing it. The title is too long. It disrupts the flow. It ruins the table of contents. It may not be acceptable to some users, it is still the most reasonable one given the following are titled "Colonial" and "Postcolonial." Having it differently would cause the rest change as well. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

(I think User:Shhhhwwww!! is referring above to a subsection title in the history section recently changed, several times, by User:Philipandrew2.) I certainly agree that the title(s) selected prior to the seed post by User:Philipandrew2 are too verbose (and should have been in sentence case). However, we also may need to distinguish neolithic and tribal histories of the Philippines - sparse though perhaps they are - from the port states and rajahnates? BushelCandle (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The distinction is between prehistory and precolonjal. There are there just look. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Pre-colonial period

The purpose of the ambiguous titles is for longevity, stability, and WP:neutrality. Changing them to more descriptive titles opens a can of worms. It will lead to the changing of the rest of the titles which is probably going to be an unpleasant process. @User:Philipandrew talk please discuss this first. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  • This is not what we called Can of worms when you had sources i will cite references for the insight . (Philipandrew2 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Shhhhwwww!!: You raise pertinent points about section titles preferably being more generic. Like many things, it's a judgement call and it's good that Philipandrew2 is attempting to give us an insight into her reasoning. BushelCandle (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

May I admonish and remind all users to:

  1. sign their posts on article discussion pages
  2. indent their posts correctly so it is more obvious what is a reply to whom
  3. NOT mark edits as "minor" when they are clearly more substantive. See Help:Minor edit
  4. write in such a way that it is clear to new participants and casual readers WHAT they are writing about- dialogues go to user talk pages
  5. NOT start NEW section titles when the contents of their posts are relevant to or a development of previous posts!

(See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more help...) BushelCandle (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

    • My last warning for the user who removing the references and reverting the information (Philipandrew2 (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippines/Archive_16&oldid=1079922390"