This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I placed the POV tag when creating the article because it is pasted from a US government website. Because this comes from a US govt source it may not be neutral, but I don't have the expertise to judge. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove the tag if they think the article looks okay.) Mangostar ( talk) 01:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This article clearly is not neutral, and needs editing. It glosses over certain negative issues such as the Philippine Senate rejecting an extension of the Military Bases Agreement. There was growing resentment(and questionable constitutionality) of that agreement at that time. I think this article just paints a rosey picture without providing much in the way of facts.
Ealpert ( talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything in this article is factually accurate. The absence of criticism doesn't invalidate the info of the article or makes it "factless".
-- 85.220.69.85 ( talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
While factual, the article should be re-written for content, structure and POV. Military Base closure should be a minor subtopic, as this topic is now very dated, and should be viewed in perspective of vast US domestic and global military base closures which Philippines is a very minor segment. POV of article suggests base closure was damaging to US - Philipines relations? A broader perspective should include impact of base closure on local economy and military defense capablities of Philippines against regional agressors absent pre-positioned US assets. Clearly, the main focus of this topic should be analysis of current economic development, trade and tourism. (and not historic military leases). âPreceding unsigned comment added by Fred4justice ( talk ⢠contribs) 07:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
How can there be nothing here about the war between the nations and the Commonwealth? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.83.5 ( talk) 09:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, please expand on this and the Philippines-American relations from 1902 to 1946. It will make the neutrality of the topic better, because the page makes it look like we've always been on good terms with them. Yuumeko ( talk) 22:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The article's lead sentence reads, "Philippines â United States relations are bilateral relations between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States." The Republic of the Philippines did not exist until July 4, 1946. Perhaps the words the Republic of should be removed there, bringing this article's lead more into line with e.g., the PhilippinesâSpain relations and MexicoâPhilippines relations articles. However, I note that the focus of those articles contrasts with the focus of e.g., the ChinaâPhilippines relations, MalaysiaâPhilippines relations articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I want to explain this edit.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest making and including a section talking about issues that hound the relations of the US and Philippine governments, though when I finish gathering up sources, I may be able to take the initiative. Examples of general and specific issues that hounded or currently hound the two countries relations are the still persistent Colonial Mentality of Filipinos (explaining why most of the Filipinos view the Americans positively if polls are to be believed and the low self-esteem of the Filipino masses on their own ability to stand up for themselves without being propped up by Americans), Parity Rights and Military Bases Treaties of 1947, Visiting Forces Agreement, Human rights violations by American military personnel in Mindanao and Subic, the overdependence of the Filipino economy on the United States (and how it is harmful to the interests of the Filipino people), and the tendency of the Philippines to become a sycophant of the US. Also, time permitting, I would be able to add the 1899 Philippine-American War and the results of American Colonization of the country in the context of the main article. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Christian B. Yang-ed ( talk ⢠contribs) 11:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The order of the nations stated under the map at the top of the entry should be switched with the US on the left and the Philippines on the right to match the map. Piguy101 ( talk) 01:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I add Filipino Language or Tagalog on the title to have a Neutral and Balance point of view the English (American's) and Filipino. (Just what in the Textbook was written on Philippines).
I think, if I'm not wrong, the article should be edited to reflect the new Philippines' president Duterte on US relations, since he and his government are leaning more towards relations with China. US relations appear to becoming stale.
Time "Philippine President Duterteâs Bold Move on China Spells Trouble Ahead" Al Jazeera "The Philippines' Duterte inches away from US and closer to China" Reuters "Philippine President Duterte announces 'separation' from United States" Eck ( talk) 11:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here, I've reverted the unexplained removal of " Provisional Government of the Republic of the Philippines (1986) (1986â1987)" from the list of governments in the "PostâColonial Period (1946âpresent)" portion of the "Predecessor States" list in the article. It seems clear to me that this belongs in the list. Please discuss here if needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
i reverted the original image of the map but i have no idea how to change the map file with this template. Please fix Erri Oldharwe ( talk) 07:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I placed the POV tag when creating the article because it is pasted from a US government website. Because this comes from a US govt source it may not be neutral, but I don't have the expertise to judge. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove the tag if they think the article looks okay.) Mangostar ( talk) 01:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This article clearly is not neutral, and needs editing. It glosses over certain negative issues such as the Philippine Senate rejecting an extension of the Military Bases Agreement. There was growing resentment(and questionable constitutionality) of that agreement at that time. I think this article just paints a rosey picture without providing much in the way of facts.
Ealpert ( talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything in this article is factually accurate. The absence of criticism doesn't invalidate the info of the article or makes it "factless".
-- 85.220.69.85 ( talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
While factual, the article should be re-written for content, structure and POV. Military Base closure should be a minor subtopic, as this topic is now very dated, and should be viewed in perspective of vast US domestic and global military base closures which Philippines is a very minor segment. POV of article suggests base closure was damaging to US - Philipines relations? A broader perspective should include impact of base closure on local economy and military defense capablities of Philippines against regional agressors absent pre-positioned US assets. Clearly, the main focus of this topic should be analysis of current economic development, trade and tourism. (and not historic military leases). âPreceding unsigned comment added by Fred4justice ( talk ⢠contribs) 07:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
How can there be nothing here about the war between the nations and the Commonwealth? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.83.5 ( talk) 09:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, please expand on this and the Philippines-American relations from 1902 to 1946. It will make the neutrality of the topic better, because the page makes it look like we've always been on good terms with them. Yuumeko ( talk) 22:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The article's lead sentence reads, "Philippines â United States relations are bilateral relations between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States." The Republic of the Philippines did not exist until July 4, 1946. Perhaps the words the Republic of should be removed there, bringing this article's lead more into line with e.g., the PhilippinesâSpain relations and MexicoâPhilippines relations articles. However, I note that the focus of those articles contrasts with the focus of e.g., the ChinaâPhilippines relations, MalaysiaâPhilippines relations articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I want to explain this edit.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I suggest making and including a section talking about issues that hound the relations of the US and Philippine governments, though when I finish gathering up sources, I may be able to take the initiative. Examples of general and specific issues that hounded or currently hound the two countries relations are the still persistent Colonial Mentality of Filipinos (explaining why most of the Filipinos view the Americans positively if polls are to be believed and the low self-esteem of the Filipino masses on their own ability to stand up for themselves without being propped up by Americans), Parity Rights and Military Bases Treaties of 1947, Visiting Forces Agreement, Human rights violations by American military personnel in Mindanao and Subic, the overdependence of the Filipino economy on the United States (and how it is harmful to the interests of the Filipino people), and the tendency of the Philippines to become a sycophant of the US. Also, time permitting, I would be able to add the 1899 Philippine-American War and the results of American Colonization of the country in the context of the main article. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Christian B. Yang-ed ( talk ⢠contribs) 11:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The order of the nations stated under the map at the top of the entry should be switched with the US on the left and the Philippines on the right to match the map. Piguy101 ( talk) 01:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I add Filipino Language or Tagalog on the title to have a Neutral and Balance point of view the English (American's) and Filipino. (Just what in the Textbook was written on Philippines).
I think, if I'm not wrong, the article should be edited to reflect the new Philippines' president Duterte on US relations, since he and his government are leaning more towards relations with China. US relations appear to becoming stale.
Time "Philippine President Duterteâs Bold Move on China Spells Trouble Ahead" Al Jazeera "The Philippines' Duterte inches away from US and closer to China" Reuters "Philippine President Duterte announces 'separation' from United States" Eck ( talk) 11:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here, I've reverted the unexplained removal of " Provisional Government of the Republic of the Philippines (1986) (1986â1987)" from the list of governments in the "PostâColonial Period (1946âpresent)" portion of the "Predecessor States" list in the article. It seems clear to me that this belongs in the list. Please discuss here if needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
i reverted the original image of the map but i have no idea how to change the map file with this template. Please fix Erri Oldharwe ( talk) 07:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)