Talk:Philippine independence

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 17 March 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance

	Philippines portal This redirect 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
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles

Comments

"Not historical in style. Misspelled Philippine in title. Rewritten contents should be included in main articles on the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.82.243 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 7 February 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Archie is the best filipino in australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.128.41 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed mergeto

I've proposed that this article be merged into History of the Philippines (1946–1965). Please discuss this here. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen no objection, I did the merge. I eliminated some introductory material from the very beginning of the Philippine independence article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Discussion

Over at Talk:Independence Day (Philippines)#Philippine independence versus Independence Day (Philippines) there is a discussion about where this should redirect to. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here I've reverted disruptive edits back to the "Redirect discussion" version of this page so that the discussion can proceed. I'll be placing a Disruptive Editing warning at User talk:Shhhhwwww!!.

Shhhhwwww!!, in response to your edit summaries saying, "Please discuss this with the U.S. State Department and ask them why they keep on sending memos every year about "Philippine independence" on June 12 not July 4.", it is actually unlikely that your fellow Wikipedia edditors will be talking to the U.S. State Department about that. I did do some googling, and though I didn't dig up all the memos, the ones I was able to look at seem to indicate that Secretary Clinton got it right. Her 2010 press statement said in part, "On behalf of the American people, I offer congratulations to the people of the Philippines on the 112th anniversary of your declaration of independence." I only see the seemingly incorrect congratulations about the "anniversary of your nation’s independence." ass having come from John Kerry (2013,, 2014). More info in the discussion over at talk:Philippines#Establishment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Denali issue and McKinley's ghost can't seem to rot underneath the ground. The State Department is doing a Turkish apology on the Armenian Genocide. Wait a year and it will be the same thing and five years from, it will still be the same. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on how this comment is intended as a suggestion regarding improvement of this article. Could you please clarify that? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Wtmitchell. I added my comments on the other page. It is important to keep this consistent across all the articles given the number of internal links involved. So let's have one conversation. At talk:Philippines#Establishment as good as any. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This recent edit popped this article up on my watch list and caused me to look back here. It occurs to me that the Philippine sovereignty article might be a better redirect target than the presently targeted article for this redirect from the term Philippine independence. The WP:LEADPARAGRAPH there reads, "The Sovereignty of the Philippines refers to the status of the Philippines as an independent nation. This article covers sovereignty transitions relating to the Philippines, 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." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As 70.51.202.113 well notes, this a redirect and no one is actually asking for it to be moved so this outside the scope of RM. Either take it to WP:RFD or start a RfC here on the talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine independence → ? – A WP:DISAMBIGUATION is needed. This phrase can refer to two topics: The Philippine Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Manila (1946). There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but both the Philippine government and the U.S. State Department (2013, 2014) prefer the June 12, 1898 date. This article currently WP:REDIRECTs to another article that may be seen as unrepresentative of WP:Worldwide view. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Philippine independence" is a redirect. If you want to turn into a DAB page, just do it. What are you proposing? 216.8.175.164 (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 216.8.175.164. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done that but a person disagrees and only ends with an WP:EDITWAR. This is a much simpler way to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually two people have reverted Shhhhwwww!!'s edits, User:Wtmitchell and me.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are only two possible choices for the meaning of "Philippine independence", and one of those topics is the national holiday properly called "Philippine Independence Day". We can continue the long-standing practice of pointing this article towards when the Philippines gained its independence and then have a link or hatnote to Philippine Independence Day --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is an on-going discussion at talk:Philippines#Establishment. Let's not change this page until that conversation reaches a consensus. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is another comment over at Talk:Independence Day (Philippines)#Philippine independence versus Independence Day (Philippines) that is related but it is one comment. No discussion ever came about. Rather the discussion is being held at talk:Philippines#Establishment.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "There are only two possible choices for the meaning of "Philippine independence"," so there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Whichever is correct depends on preference. The "Constitutive theory" under the Congress of Vienna supports the later date while the "Declarative theory" under the Montevideo Convention supports the earlier one. Note that the United States' own date of independence is under the "Declarative theory" of which that country is also a signatory of the convention. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry my response was unclear. I think that there are two possible choices and that one is a Primary Topic -- the date that the Philippines gained its independence as universally recognized -- with the added point that the other has "Day" in the article title, clearly distinguishing it from the former article. With only two possible options and with the latter article having "Day" in the title, I think that a disambiguation page is unnecessary. The current practice -- Philippine independence pointing to when the Philippines became an internationally recognized independent country with a hatnote pointing towards the Philippine Independence Day article -- is fine. Readers can find what they are looking for while also being educated about the distinction between declaration and independence. If a disambiguation page is considered necessary, than I suggest following the Fort Bragg model -- the primary article is Fort Bragg and then there is a hatnote and a Fort Bragg (disambiguation) page.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completely understood the gist yet there are still two dates and one has more political support than the other. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. You got that completely wrong. "Political support", by which I presume you speak of political support within WP and from WP editors, has nothing whatever to do with it -- or it certainly ought not to. To sloganize: "WP editorial policies matter." Two WP editorial policies which are important in this regard are WP:V and WP:NPOV (and, particularly, the WP:DUE portion of the latter). Another policy which matters here is WP:OR, which prohibits interpretation through editorial analysis of a source such as http://www.gov.ph/2015/08/26/nationwide-holidays-2016/, which announces that a holiday named Independence Day will be celebrated as a regular holiday on June 12, 2016 , as support for an assertion to the effect that the Philippines achieved independent status as a sovereign nation on June 12, 1898. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the "Declarative theory" under the under the Montevideo Convention which is also used by the United States to justify the American Declaration of Independence. No WP:Original research just a statement of fact. Please provide WP:reliable sources challenging this and why July 4, 1946 is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Declarative theory" is a nice snippet in this context -- I take that as implying an assertion that an insurgent group which declares itself as an independent sovereign over some territory (as Aguinaldo's revolutionaries did in the colonial Philippines) are masters of the independent sovereign state thereby declared as independent. Is that what you imply? If not, what do you imply?

The Montevideo Convention neither says nor implies anything like this (see [1]). You and half a dozen of your friends sitting around your kitchen table could declare independence over all or part of the country in which you live over dinner this evening. Such a declaration would not necessarily negate previously recognized sovereignty -- that is my inexpert understanding. To re-argue an analogy I remember from an earlier exchange about this some years ago, as I understand it, the U.S. Declaration of Independence did not establish the independence of the U.S. from Britain -- rather, the successful prosecution of the U.S. revolutionary war against British rule did establish the U.S. as an independent and sovereign nation. Also, I note that the Montevideo Convention, enacted in 1933, postdated all of this by quite a bit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using inflammatory language to insult Emilio Aguinaldo's declaration has no effect on its validity nor legality. Diosdado Macapagal upheld the June 12, 1898 date during the celebration of this date in 1962 and so far no government nor president of the United States has ever challenged this. If Aguinaldo's aldosterone did not have legitimate control over the Philippines, then why did the Philippine-American War claim thousands of American lives? Using the word insurgent doesn't change this fact and it is pretty much any irrelevant word. The American Revolution was only successful because of France's intervention so the claim that is an "American" is too much. The Montevideo Convention is retroactive. Finally, people around a kitchen table can theoretically form a sovereign state that fulfills all the requirements of the Montevideo Convention. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that by "inflammatory language" and "insult" you mean my likening the Philippines DofI (see text here) by disparaging implication to something cooked up by six guys sitting around a kitchen table. OK, I overstated that. As for the "validity" and "legality" of the Philippines DofI, I think it compares in those respects with the U.S. DofI, and I think that the lead section of the WP Declaration of Independence article which says that "[the state from which independence is being declared] may regard the declaration as rebellion, which may lead to a war of independence or a constitutional settlement to resolve the crisis. Not all declarations of independence succeed in the formation of an independent state." should be noted. I see that in paragraph 79 of [2] (cited in that WP article), the International Court of Justice observed, "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."

My understanding is that in the case of the U.S. the successful prosecution of a war of rebellion led to the formation of an independent state, while in the case of the Philippines the absence of a war of rebellion having been successfully prosecuted to a conclusion suggests that the Philippine DofI did not lead to the formation of an independent state (and the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris (1898), whereby Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the U.S., and subsequent history tends to support that view, I think).

That is just my view, though. If I tried, I could no doubt find good sources supporting that view. However, I see that the Address of President Macapagal on Independence Day, June 12, 1962 which you linked above (and which I had not previously seen) seems to indicate that President Macapagal, for one, would hold a different view. That brings up the question of whether both views should be presented, per WP:DUE. As of now, it seems to me that they should be.

This article is currently a redirect to History of the Philippines (1946–65)#Philippine independence (the targeted section does not exist -- the present redirect should probably target History of the Philippines (1946–65)#Recognition of independence). It seems to me that there is more to say on this topic than is said there, that this article should be expanded into a WP:SS detail article on this topic, and that once that is done the section targeted by the current redirect should reference this article as {{main}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Looking at this I see that back in December 2007 I proposed and then did a merge of this as a detail article into a section of History of the Philippines (1946–65), turning this page into a redirect. At the time of the merge, this article as it then existed looked like this. Subsequent to the merge, that content has been pared down in its new home. Perhaps this can serve as the starting point for a WP:SS detail article on the topic which, per discussion above, might be expanded to present a Philippine perspective on this, drawing on (and citing as supporting sources) President Macapagal's June 12, 1962 address linked above and other relevant sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back in 2007, this page was a full article, while back in July 2015, this was a disambiguation page. Between those periods this has been a redirect. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE if this discussion is for the discussion of the redirect, and not the former article, or the prior disambiguation page, and its proper pagename, then this move request is procedurally invalid, since redirects are not discussed with WP:RM, they are discussed using WP:RFD . If this is the case, then this discussion should be procedurally closed -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy procedural close the nominator seems to be attempting to discuss the use of a redirect through WP:Requested moves which is the wrong process to use. We have an actual process for the discussion of redirects, and WP:RM is not it. It is called WP:Redirects for discussion -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify This is for a restoration of the WP:Disambiguation page. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves is not for content disputes. This is the wrong process to use. Either discuss the redirect (ie. "disambiguate the redirect") at WP:RFD or open a regular content dispute discussion (such as WP:RFC, or some regular discussion). -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not content dispute. "Philippine independence" is being moved into "Philippine independence" because there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and a WP:Disambiguation page is needed and if there was then it should correspond to the Philippine Independence Day Parade which people are actually celebrating. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content on the subjectpage, because it is a redirect. There is literally nothing to move. If you want to discuss the redirect, go to WP:Redirects for discussion, that includes, asking to turn it into a disambiguation page, or repointing the redirect to a different location, if you want to use a formal process to do that. This is still not a topic that is discussed at REQUESTED MOVES. So, this should still be closed a PROCEDURAL CLOSE as the wrong process -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm persuaded that the a PROCEDURAL CLOSE is appropriate. Further I suggest that those interested in this topic should join the conversation at Talk:Philippines#Establishment. One conversation in one place is preferable.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.