Talk:Timeline of Philippine sovereignty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial version of the article[edit]

Following on discussions at Talk:Sovereignty of the Philippines, I've created the initial version of this article.

I've redirected Sovereignty of the Philippines, which was previously an article on this general topic, to this article. I've also redirected Philippine sovereignty (previously a redirect to that last-mentioned article) to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

POV disputed as per discussion on page referred to above. Lambanog (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the preceding edit, this article has been discussed a bit on Talk:Sovereignty of the Philippines. I have asked there that discussion continue here.

Lambanog, I've always been open to your adding cite-supported material to satisfy your POV concerns; of course the burden of evidence responsibility would lie with the editor who added the material (I had looked without success for evidence supporting your POV). You suggested in another venue that one could use Westphalian principles just as effectively to argue on behalf of the First Malolos Republic; I didn't pursue discussing that at the time, but I felt that making such an argument without supporting sources would be original research, and supporting such an argument with multiple sources risks synthesis.

Some recent googling on my part has turned up this source, pages 98-116 (111-116 in particular, at least the parts of that available for preview) appear to offer citeable support for an assertion that Philippine sovereignty was in dispute between the U.S. and the Malolos Republic from the declaration of war on the U.S. by the Malolos Congress on June 2, 1899 until Aguinaldo's swearing of Allegience to the U.S. on April 1, 1901. I suggest that I edit the article to that effect and you remove the NPOV tag. What say? If anyone else has an opinion on this, please chime in. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Philippine-American War sovereignty dispute[edit]

I've edited the table to describe the period during which the Philippine-American War was declared and ongoing as a period of sovereignty dispute between the U.S. and the Malolos Republic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

The NPOV discussion seems to have petered out. I propose to remove the NPOV tag. If the discussion is to continue, please note the following guidance from the Template:NPOV Template usage notes:

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Some of the sources you have cited can be interpreted differently from the way you have presented them in this chart. There is a fundamental and inherently biased improper synthesis going on in this article. That and the very title of this article are slanted towards a particular view. If that is not clear enough I will add more tags to make it clearer. Lambanog (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Please provide specific examples and cite sources supporting those examples. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
As stated previously Aguinaldo is recognized by the Republic of the Philippines as the first President of the Philippines. Labeling the First Philippine Republic as an insurgency is therefore disputable and a violation of NPOV. The premise and reason for the creation of this entire article from what I can tell is to advocate and justify American expansion in the Philippines. Due to your experience in editing multiple articles associated with the subject you are or should be perfectly aware of the competing views. That you claim ignorance or are blind to the opposing view is not my problem. There is no need for me or anyone else for that matter to contribute to an intrinsically biased and flawed article that should properly be deleted. Lambanog (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, please cite a reliable source supporting the assertion, "Aguinaldo is recognized by the Republic of the Philippines as the first President of the Philippines." Also, please explain how this assertion relates to Philippine sovereignty, citing appropriate reliable supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why this article is necessary and why you have decided to create it. I'm unaware of such articles for other countries. Please also explain the labeling you have chosen. Why for example is the column heading "Sovereign Entity" and not "Foreign Invader" or "Imperialist Occupier"? In a previous post of yours you have already referred to the official government website that lists Aguinaldo as a Philippine president. You have chosen to interpret that as not proving that Aguinaldo is considered the first Philippine president despite that being pretty self-evident. You also claim not being able to find reliable sources. But a simple way of searching for reliable sources other Wikipedia editors have recommended has turned up over a thousand possible candidates. I can only assume an editor such as yourself should have been easily able to find such a reliable source if you are but willing to. But it appears that you are not. Citing sources for your benefit therefore appears like it would be a waste of time but be assured I can do so should neutral third parties need convincing. Lambanog (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Once again, please note the following guidance from the Template:NPOV Template usage notes:

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

One of my previous explanations of why this article is necessary and why I have decided to create it can be seen here.
As I said here, If you feel that I have left important points out, please add relevant points which I have missed. Please, though, cite reliable sources supporting the added material.
Though it properly would be up to you to edit the article to insert additional material which you believe the article should incorporate in order to give due weight to points of view which you believe should be described, I am willing to do some of that editing work for you. If you want me to do that editing work for you, though, you'll have to help me out a bit.
My perception of your POV is that you believe that somehow, in some way, one or more of Aguinaldo's proclaimed governments had some significant claim on Philippine sovereignty for some period of time (precisely what period of time this might be is unclear to me). I don't see a lot of qualitative difference between other insurgencies beginning with the Dagami Revolt of 1521, continuing with a log list of insurgencies over 300+ years through the Katipunan insurgency under Bonifaciao, later under Aguinaldo, continuing with Aguinaldo's various insurgent governmental movements, continuing with Sacay's post-Aguinaldo insurgency, and continuing with the MILF, the MNLF, and possibly with the Abu-Sayyaf, but nobody is pushing POV on those other insurgencies.
Even though the Malolos constitution itself acknowledges that the insurgent government which it established comes into existence while "... the country is fighting for its independence" (see Article 99 here), thereby explicitly acknowledging that said independence is not an established fact, I've tried to accommodate your POV by describing the period of the Malolos Republic insurgency between that republic's formal declaration of war on the US and the end of said war as a period of sovereignty dispute—seeing the official declaration of war as distinguishing the situation re the Malolos Republic from all those other insurgencies. I am aware that Aguinaldo made a sort-of unofficial declaration of war on 4 Feb (see here) five months in advance of the June 2 official declaration of war. I don't think that it would be outlandishly unreasonable to consider this a de-facto declaration of war and to move the beginning date of the period in which the timeline shows sovereignty as being in dispute from June 2 to Feb 4, along with some textual clarification and a supporting cite.
If you have alternative suggestions, please either incorporate them into the article yourself along with appropriate supporting citations or duscuss here what specific changes you think should be made. Your repeated nonspecific and unsupported yapping that you don't like the article as it stands without specific suggestions about how you believe it should be improved isn't at all helpful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I've highlighted specific problems with the article: bias in article title, bias in subject matter, bias in labeling, improper synthesis of ideas found in sourced materials, advocacy. The existence of such an intrinsically biased and flawed article is not good for Wikipedia but you insist on it and have sought to "improve" it. A house built on sand is going to have problems no matter how you "improve" it. You should have been fully aware of the controversial potential of the article when you created it and I have raised objections from early on in case you weren't so pardon my yapping. Nevertheless you have pushed headlong into it. NPOV tag is entirely appropriate. Some of the very sources you cite are more equivocal on the subject than you portray them to be and many others can be found to contradict the black and white presentation you give. Regardless I have added the POV-title tag to make things even clearer since your complaint makes it clear its inclusion aside from just the NPOV tag is called for. Lambanog (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The article describes the timeline of sovereignty transitions, insurgency movements and insurgent groups from pre-Spanish days to the present in the nation now known as the Republic of the Philippines. It seems to me that "Timeline of Philippine Sovereignty" is a recognizable, easy-to-find, precise, concise, unambiguous title for that topic. Can you suggest a better title instead of simply complaining that you don't like the current title?
Please either correct (citing supporting sources, of course) instances which you consider to be
  • bias in labeling
  • improper synthesis of ideas found in sourced materials
  • advocacy
If you don't want to do the editing work to correct such perceived problems yourself, please point out what you believe to be specific instances here (citing supporting sources, of course). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I can only consider this article tolerable with a clear NPOV tag or substantial changes that go to its essence. I have desisted from nominating for deletion due to respect for the work you have put into it, but will feel compelled to do so absent strong indication of the fundamental difference of opinion on the subject. Lambanog (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Lambanog, my understanding of your concerns is that you feel that this article does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources as WP:DUE requires. I again invite you to contribute sourced content to the article to address the problems you perceive with it. I again offer to try to introduce such content myself if you will explain with some specificity the problems you perceive and will point me towards sources supporting POVs which you feel should be given more WP:WEIGHT in the article (please, though, remember that I'm limited to sources I can access online or which I happen to have on my bookshelf).
The specific POV matter which I think you believe should be given more visibility is the POV which would assert that the Malolos Republic was a legitimate sovereign state, possibly a state with limited recognition, rather than an unrecognized state (do I misunderstand?). One source which I'll point out which I believe presents a strong argument against the Malolos Republic having been a sovereign state is the snippet from article 99 of the Malolos Constitution which says, " the meantime that the country is fighting for its independence, ...". My understanding of history is that the independence referred to there did not become an established fact by the mere pronouncement of its declaration, that the Treaty of Paris (1898) legitimately transferred sovereignty over the Philippine Archipelago from Spain to the U.S., and that this "meantime" ended with the Malolos Republic not achieving the independence which it later sought by force of arms against the U.S. in the Philippine-American War.
Re deletion of the article as a means of resolution for your concerns, please note that WP:Deletion policy says that if an article can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The presentation of the information in the chart is simplistic and biased, and is argued from a particular point-of-view. The choice of category headings "sovereign entity" and "insurgents" is questionable. Why not "colonial imperialists" and "indigenous revolutionaries"? It would make just as much sense for most of it considering where the Japanese are placed in the current chart. The Malolos Republic and Japan were both at war with the United States and held far more territory at certain stages. But it would seem this article supports the idea that the Japanese Empire had a better claim to sovereignty over the Philippines than the Malolos Republic. I'm not sure how your understanding of history deals with that. The idea of sovereignty is a murky one and basing an article on it where it in dispute is simply calling for controversy. The self-declaration of a people can be as "legitimate" as a treaty.
In any event the title of the article is a misnomer and misleading. Considering the vast majority of the article content, the title has an intrinsic error that further addition of information along the same lines heretofore will not cure. The majority of the article is more about Spanish and American sovereignty in the Philippines than it is about Philippine sovereignty. If the focus was really Philippine sovereignty, the Malolos Republic as a distinctly Philippine national entity would be a central focus. More germane for an article with this title for example would be the inclusion of a timeline of events showing the rise and fall of the Malolos Republic. Lambanog (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll address those points in reverse order, but I hope to avoid getting into another long-drawn-out talk-paqe exchange on this.
Re the article title, the topic which the article addresses is the history of sovereignty over the Philippine archipelago. You may recall that the present article grew out of a previous title of Sovereignty of the Philippines, and that there was some discussion about that title which culminated in the move to the current title (See this, but, actually, there are a couple of sections on that talk page with that name and you'll need to scroll to see them both; also see this). Personally, I think that either title fits the topic but that the article was improved by reorganization along a strict timeline. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Deciding an article name says that, ideally, article titles should be: recognizable, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent. An article title something like e.g., Timeline of sovereignty of various polities over the Philippine archipelago would conflict with most of that.
The article presents sovereignty as "In dispute between Britain and Spain " between 1762 and 1764, "In dispute between the U.S. and Spain" between August 14, 1898 and December 10, 1898, "In dispute between United States and the Malolos Republic " between June 2, 1899 and April 19, 1901, and "In dispute between the United States and Japan" between 1941 and March 29, 1942. I don't understand how you get a judgment about which of the parties to those various disputes had a "better claim" to sovereignty out of that.
Your assertion above that the self-declaration of a people can be as "legitimate" as a treaty. seems to conflict with information in the Sovereignty and Sovereign state articles. Perhaps you have something similar to Rule according to higher law in mind, but I don't see it.
Considering our past long and tiresome history on this, I don't have any confidence that you and I will be able to come to an agreement through discussion between ourselves. I have no experience with either route, but it seems to me that we ought to go to WP:DR#Informal mediation and, if that doesn't work, WP:DR#Formal mediation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality[edit]

I've listed this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality#Timeline of Philippine sovereignty. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC) ───────────────────────── As of 30 November 2011 this listing is still open. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of Philippine sovereignty. 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}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 03:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Tondo[edit]

This edit by @JournalmanManila: caught my eye. I'm not an expert on the historical points involved, but I noticed that there appears to be a conflict here between this article and the timeline detailed in Kingdom of Tondo#Historical Rulers of Tondo. Perhaps this needs some adjustment or clarification in one or both of these articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @ Wtmitchell Rajah Gambang reigned from 1390? 1417? it means he didn't reach the time when tondo fought the Muslim empire of Bolkiah which is dated in 1500,

Lakan Suko or sukwo was the possible to fought Bokiah because he reigned from 1417-1430.

they said Lontok converted their faith to islam which means tondo had already sacked by Bruneian empire when lontok had become a Raja /king. we need corrective datings here , This is the problem from this list of kings i only add the names of the kings but i suposed to check their datings later. (JournalmanManila (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC))