Tambayan Philippines Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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

Your choice of definition, the constitutive theory of statehood, should be explained. The article on Sovereignty chooses the Treaty of Westphalia as a starting off point for example. Why not that? Another thing to note: at the time there were far fewer other states that could give the kind of recognition that theory looks for. Is today's Taiwan not an insurgent state by your definition only because some countries in Africa and some Pacific islands recognize it? If taking the theoretical case that should all current supporters drop their recognition, all other things being equal, should Taiwan even if in full control of its territory be considered insurgent?

Was Napoleonic France an insurgency? It came to be at the start of the 19th century so I wonder how this theory that was developed later would be applied. How about Bolshevik Russia?

Also as an American do you consider the United Nations as having the right or even the duty to constrain the United States when it invaded the sovereign state of Iraq? What does "recognition" mean? Only a piece of paper? Or a commitment backed by action? Lambanog (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on international law, and I welcome correction of any shortcomings in this article by persons more knowledgeable in this area than myself. I looked at the Westphalian sovereignty and the Peace of Westphalia articles and had the thought that they seemed very euro-centric. I thought I had gotten the idea that the constitutive theory of statehood was appropriate to the late 19th century timeframe of the events surrounding the end of the Spanish-American War from its WP article, but I don't see that in there on a quick look back. I may have gotten that from this source, a supporting cite of which I have now added to the article..

The other Sovereignty of ... articles (Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands) deffer from this one in that those articles deal with sovereignty disputes between governments for which clear and supportable descriptions exist, while this article deals with differing opinions about Philippine sovereignty transitions around the end of the Spanish-American War about which I have not been able to find many clear assertions re claims of sovereignty by or on behalf of the various entities involved except for the U.S. and Spain (an exception to that is the assertion that the Katipunan became an "open de facto government" on 24 August 1896, which I mentioned in the article along with the supporting cites I had seen.)

Remember WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."). The topic of the article addresses a point which has often been contentious in Philippines-focused WP articles. I think that topic deserves more visibility and deserves treatment over a longer timeframe and in greater depth than it has been receiving in edit summaries and talk page discussions—hence this article. This article should not argue a Wikipedia position re Philippine sovereignty status transitions. This article should describe the sovereignty status transition situation of the Philippines, citing relevant reliable supporting sources. The initial stub was intended as a starting point towards that end.

In this edit, which lacks an edit summary, you placed two {{NPOV}} tags in this article, one at the head and the other in the Sovereignty section. I've added a {{main}} tag and some additional introductory text to that section, but I infer that your feelings re NPOV involve the final two sentences of the section. Please suggest improvements here or be bold and edit improvements into the article yourself.

You ask whether I consider Napoleonic France and/or Bolshevik Russia insurgencies. Let me answer different questions instead:

• Was the American Revolution an insurgency?

Yes—one which ultimately succeeded, resulting in the Treaty of Paris (1783) in which Britain, former holder of sovereignty over the U.S., recognized U.S. independence.

• Did the United States Declaration of Independence establish an independent sovereign state and/or a legitimate government?

No. It began the insurgency known as the American Revolution.

• Was the government established by the Articles of Confederation the legitimate government of a sovereign state when established?

No. It was an insurgent government in revolution against British rule. It was legitimized by the Treaty of Paris (1783).

• If the American Revolution had failed, would that government ever have been legitimate or ever have held sovereignty?

No.

• Was the successor government established by the U.S. Constitution a legitimate government when established?

Yes—It was established subsequent to the Treaty of Paris (1783).

Re your questions beginning "As an American, ...", I don't see how those questions relate to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are American, I would say that can be grounds to suspect possible bias in regards to the creation of this article in particular. Of course we all have our biases but it would be beneficial for all concerned in the discussion to be aware of the degree of that bias. The questions I asked you contain related ideas, your reluctance to answer them gives an indication to some degree of your interest in this topic and how narrowly or broadly you are approaching it. Citing the Philippine Supreme Court in support of your position but not pointing out that this was a Philippine Supreme Court during the American Period does not show balance. Nor does inferring the statement made supports the idea of no Philippine sovereignty at the time. If the Nuremberg trials had cited the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact it still would not mean that the Nuremberg Court supported the document.

You cite the Treaty of Paris (1783) as legitimating the sovereignty of the United States. So a piece of paper is enough? Very well, Diosdado Macapagal's presidential proclamation of 1962 in which Philippine Independence as dated June 12, 1898 is recognized on behalf of the sovereign state of the Republic of the Philippines pretty much recognizes the sovereignty of the First Malolos Republic as well and Emilio Aguinaldo as the first president. Happy? 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all have our biases. I strive here to create a balanced article. I invite you to work with me towards that end.

My days in history classes are several decades in the past; I don't recall the details surrounding the establishment of Napoleonic France and Bolshevik Russia and didn't want to take the time to research them, so I asked and answered questions which I could do more readily and which I thought spoke to your points at least as directly as answering the other questions would have. I still don't see the relevance of your "As an American ..." questions to this article, and want to avoid defucusing this discussion with a sidebar about about the invasion of Iraq.

I took some pains in the article to explain that the Philippine Supreme Court is a court which had its origins in legislation crafted by the Taft Commission; please re-read the initial paragraph of the "Philippine Supreme Court statements regarding sovereignty" section of the article. I solicit your contributions towards improving that section and/or other sections of the article. I don't understand your reasoning in saying that my inferring that a statement in a Philippine Supreme Court decision that, "By the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the United States." does not support the idea of no Philippine sovereignty at the time. I don't know whether or not any testimony in the Nuremberg Trials cited the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and don't see how that would relate to this article.

You ask if a piece of paper is enough. Again, I'm not an expert on the international law of sovereignty, but my understanding is that if the piece of paper in question is an agreement between sovereign states regarding cessation of territory from one state which holds sovereignty over the territory in question to another sovereign state, then that piece of paper very likely is enough.

You assert that Diosdado Macapagal's presidential proclamation of 1962 in which Philippine Independence as dated June 12, 1898 is recognized on behalf of the sovereign state of the Republic of the Philippines pretty much recognizes the sovereignty of the First Malolos Republic as well and Emilio Aguinaldo as the first president. The operative paragraph of that proclamation reads,

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

As I read that, declares a one-time public holiday on June 12, 1962; no more, no less. I thank you for reminding me of that, and I am aware that on August 4, 1964, RA4166 changed the date of the Independence day holiday from July 4 to June 12 (declaring July 4 as Philippine Republic Day). In the interest of giving this due weight, I will add info about that to the article. Also, having taken a quick look back at the Public holidays in the Philippines article, it strikes me that this article might not accurately reflect the sources I've just mentioned, and I'll probably edit sections of that article to bring them into conformance with info in those sources.

Again, I invite you to join me in working towards improving this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I have no interest in writing an article which seems to have been created as little more than a justification for the United States actions during the Philippine American War. There are many other perspectives that could be included and which are more notable to this specific case than just the mere ceding of territory between two countries. For example there is no mention of this being a potentially seminal first in Asia case of a European imperial power being overthrown. There is no comment on how the international diplomacy of the time was basically a clubby group of largely European imperial powers that had a vested interest in suppressing the populations of their colonies. There is no talk of domino theory. I would say that is the main point of notability of an article on the subject. If the article remains as it is, it is little more than propaganda and advocacy and should be merged elsewhere or deleted forthwith. Lambanog (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles titled "Sovereignty of __insert country__" are rare and generally non-standard. If there are reasons to have such an article, going by the content of other such articles I would note there are a variety of other sovereignty related issues that could reasonably be expected to be the main subject of this article such as the dispute over the Kalayaan Islands, claims on Sabah via the Sultanate of Sulu, the ARMM, disputes with Communist and Muslim rebels, and the extent of RP control in Southern Mindanao. I would therefore submit that going by the content of this article it is inaccurately named. Because of its narrow point of view, the content probably belongs more accurately in the "Philippine-American War" article, "American Empire", or "Overseas expansion of the United States" or perhaps a newly created article along the lines of "United States Justifications for Military Intervention". Also see my comments in preceding section above. I will therefore add a NPOV tag regarding title and subject matter and recommend a merge to a more relevant article. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point re international disputes over sovereignty and changes to the extent of the territory. If nobody else adds a new section to the article with info on this, I'll try to get around to it. One item in addition of those you mentioned would be the Island of Palmas Case, which removed an island which had been ceded by Spain to the U.S. from U.S. sovereignty and awarded it to Holland (hence, it is now Indonesian instead of Filipino). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply get the feeling the article is a regurgitation of information explored in more detail in other articles. It is by and large redundant. Please explain the value of this article and why it should not be deleted. Lambanog (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this article grew out of discussions regarding the addition or removal of the word insurgent to describe a characteristic of the First Philippine Republic. I have noted and been involved in similar issues in other Philippines-related articles, and note conflicts between articles regarding this issue—multiple times in some articles—e.g.:

• the List of sovereign states by formation date article has had the First Philippine Republic added and removed (several times, as I recall);
• List of sovereign states in 1898 currently lists the First Philippine Republic
• List of countries by Independence Day lists 12 June 1898 as the date the Philippines became independent (not July 4, 1946, which is not mentioned);
• the First Philippine Republic, Philippine Revolution, Spanish-American War, Philippine Revolution, Philippine-American War, History of the Philippines (1898-1946) articles come to mind as having had confusion regarding this issue, and some of those articles are probably currently in conflict with others over this issue.

No doubt other cases exist. This indicates that one of or more of several things must be true:

• possibly, different reliable sources assert different positions re the Philippine sovereignty transitions (I have not found this to be the case, but I have not examined all possibly relevant sources. If reliable sources turn up asserting positions contrary to the info in this article, info about that should be added to this article, citing those sources.);
• possibly, there is a lack of understanding re Philippine sovereignty transitions on the part of some editors (and also, no doubt, on the part of some general readers using WP as a source of information);
• possibly, there is good understanding re Philippine sovereignty transitions by most editors, but POV issues involving some editors lead them to vandalize articles involving the Philippines to reflect their POV view rather than the view which reliable sources would support (correcting such cases tends to lead to edit wars, and dispute resolution is difficult due to the lack of a single source where a consensus position regarding the issue has been established);
• possibly, there are other possibilities.

I couldn't find a WP article or article section where Philippine sovereignty status transition situation was documented in an encyclopedic manner with cited supporting sources. In light of the possibilities just mentioned, I considered this to be a failing on WP's part. As a hardworking WP editor, I set out to fix this perceived failing by organizing info which I had collected in a discussion paper offshoot of that discussion I mentioned, along with info gleaned from a number of Wikipedia articles touching on events related to these status transitions into this article, presenting that information and citing supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with you being an active Wikipedia contributor and creator of content and your wish to discuss or have issues of interest represented in Wikipedia. However, the vast majority of content in this article is inappropriate and does not belong under the article title. Most of it is about interpreting a historical matter not a current political one. All other sovereignty articles I've seen are concerned with current political disputes. To keep such information under this heading implies it is a current political issue. It is not. Other articles give better context to the historical issue and to have it here is redundant.

Furthermore, the article is written mainly to support one point of view. It is essay like in that regard. You have had the opportunity to easily include other pertinent points of view but have not done so and have selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints even if they were on the same page or the next page of sources you cite. That indicates deliberate omission of pertinent information and that you have written this article with the intent to advocate your preferred point of view. The cosmetic changes that have been made in response to some criticism still leave the article lopsided in favor of the viewpoint you wish to present while other expressed criticism remains unaddressed. POV warning banner is still appropriate. Lambanog (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of view for which I espouse support is the one enunciated by the lead sentence of Wikipedia's verifiability policy:

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

If you feel that I have left important points out, please add relevant points which I have missed. Please, though, cite reliable sources supporting the added material. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bring up verifiability as the main problem although I have identified some weaknesses in that regard as well. The problem if I am not being clear enough is POV. Lambanog (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure who you are addressing Bluemask, but if it is me then answer me this: presuming one starts from a state of ignorance, from this article can you explain the position of Aguinaldo's government or that of the First Malolos Republic? Lambanog (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some info on that to the article, along with supporting cites. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your edits I don't see how they would affect Bluemask's ability to answer my question. Lambanog (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a Wikipedia:summary style spinout (please do follow those wikilinks) of a topic which impacts multiple articles related to the Philippines, spinning the topic out into a standalone article allows it to be treated in more detail than would be suitable in every article impacted by the topic.

A partial list of articles impacted by this topic has been mentioned above, and includes the List of sovereign states by formation date, List of sovereign states in 1898, List of countries by Independence Day, First Philippine Republic, Philippine Revolution, Spanish-American War, Philippine Revolution, Philippine-American War, History of the Philippines (1898-1946) articles. The question of whether Philippine insurgent entities such as the First Philippine Republic were legitimate, independent, sovereign states comes up from time to time in these articles, and that question can impact other articles (e.g., President of the Philippines, Tagalog Republic, Republic of Biak-na-Bato, ...) as well. It is simply impractical to deal with the question of Philippine sovereignty in detail separately in each article every time it arises.

Spinning this topic out into a standalone article which deals with it in detail allows articles which are impacted by the topic to wikilink to this article as a source of details on the topic. In this standalone article, all significant viewpoints relevant to the topic that have been published by reliable sources can be given due weight. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]