This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treaty of Manila (1946) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just created this article. The name, Treaty of Manila (1946), is my own invention and I am only guessing that this name is appropriate since I have this naming convention used in other articles about treaties. I haven't found any references to this particular treaty in or out of Wikipedia as the "Treaty of Manila". For a possibly relevant sidebar item regarding naming of treaties, see this New York Times article titled "Treaty of What's Its Name". -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC) and 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 13:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
– Common name; primary topic. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 11:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I included a section that discusses the continued limitations on Philippine independence by the US after the "Treaty of Manila" was implemented. The original page states: "The United States granted the Philippines full independence, and the treaty provided for the recognition of that independence". But "full" independence was not achieved. The US retained several military bases and even made extraterritorial attempts by asking to regain criminal jurisdiction over offenses made by US military personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pecmiraflores ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I added several paragraphs discussing the lead-up to the Treaty of Manila, clarifying the political actions which took place in the decades before to lead to independence. I also added more information about why the United States decided to voluntarily relinquish control. I created a new Treaty Provisions section since nowhere did the article actually delineate what the treaty implied. -- Louisbrickman ( talk) 06:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Here, I've made a number of changes to the Background section, some substantive and some not.
This needs more work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
A quote from a 1910 article speculating that the US would only give up the Philippines in the event of war is used as (the only) evidence that the US may not have granted independence without the 1941-45 war with Japan. This is a ridiculous way to support the statement. The whole paragraph should be deleted, or better yet, legitimate sources should be used to discuss the effects of the war and occupation on US-Philippines relations and the question of independence. The 1910 article is irrelevant here and should definitely be removed. Djdj67 ( talk) 05:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
On one hand, the war put a hold on Philippine independence from the U.S. Yet one scholar, Austro-Hungarian professor and close friend of several Filipino revolutionaries, Ferdinand Blumentritt, commented in 1910 that the U.S. would never actually grant the Philippines independence except through "a war of separation or of a conflict between Japan and the United States." [1] Thus the Japanese occupation may have aided the post-war move towards independence.
Clearly, there were serious fallacies of logic in what Professor Blumentritt wrote, but the point is not what he said but rather that he said it, when he said it. For several years preceding, certain Filipinos had been suggesting that a war between the United States and Japan would bring freedom to the Philippines. For example, ...
References
There is more in the Background section than there is about the treaty itself. And yet, it makes no mention of the Philipine-American War. I have taken a first stab at trimming down some of the excessive detail in this section. However, much of what remains should also likely be trimmed. It is also sorely in need of a section on the Philippine-American war and the post-war insurgency. TallNapoleon ( talk) 07:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:SS seems like a good lodestar to follow here. Given that, rather than expanding too much more on the Philippine-Amiercan War, it seems like we should cut down on some of the excess detail in the other sections. After all this article is supposed to be about a specific treaty, not the nearly 50 years of colonization preceeding. TallNapoleon ( talk) 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treaty of Manila (1946) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just created this article. The name, Treaty of Manila (1946), is my own invention and I am only guessing that this name is appropriate since I have this naming convention used in other articles about treaties. I haven't found any references to this particular treaty in or out of Wikipedia as the "Treaty of Manila". For a possibly relevant sidebar item regarding naming of treaties, see this New York Times article titled "Treaty of What's Its Name". -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC) and 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 13:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
– Common name; primary topic. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 11:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I included a section that discusses the continued limitations on Philippine independence by the US after the "Treaty of Manila" was implemented. The original page states: "The United States granted the Philippines full independence, and the treaty provided for the recognition of that independence". But "full" independence was not achieved. The US retained several military bases and even made extraterritorial attempts by asking to regain criminal jurisdiction over offenses made by US military personnel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pecmiraflores ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I added several paragraphs discussing the lead-up to the Treaty of Manila, clarifying the political actions which took place in the decades before to lead to independence. I also added more information about why the United States decided to voluntarily relinquish control. I created a new Treaty Provisions section since nowhere did the article actually delineate what the treaty implied. -- Louisbrickman ( talk) 06:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Here, I've made a number of changes to the Background section, some substantive and some not.
This needs more work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
A quote from a 1910 article speculating that the US would only give up the Philippines in the event of war is used as (the only) evidence that the US may not have granted independence without the 1941-45 war with Japan. This is a ridiculous way to support the statement. The whole paragraph should be deleted, or better yet, legitimate sources should be used to discuss the effects of the war and occupation on US-Philippines relations and the question of independence. The 1910 article is irrelevant here and should definitely be removed. Djdj67 ( talk) 05:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
On one hand, the war put a hold on Philippine independence from the U.S. Yet one scholar, Austro-Hungarian professor and close friend of several Filipino revolutionaries, Ferdinand Blumentritt, commented in 1910 that the U.S. would never actually grant the Philippines independence except through "a war of separation or of a conflict between Japan and the United States." [1] Thus the Japanese occupation may have aided the post-war move towards independence.
Clearly, there were serious fallacies of logic in what Professor Blumentritt wrote, but the point is not what he said but rather that he said it, when he said it. For several years preceding, certain Filipinos had been suggesting that a war between the United States and Japan would bring freedom to the Philippines. For example, ...
References
There is more in the Background section than there is about the treaty itself. And yet, it makes no mention of the Philipine-American War. I have taken a first stab at trimming down some of the excessive detail in this section. However, much of what remains should also likely be trimmed. It is also sorely in need of a section on the Philippine-American war and the post-war insurgency. TallNapoleon ( talk) 07:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:SS seems like a good lodestar to follow here. Given that, rather than expanding too much more on the Philippine-Amiercan War, it seems like we should cut down on some of the excess detail in the other sections. After all this article is supposed to be about a specific treaty, not the nearly 50 years of colonization preceeding. TallNapoleon ( talk) 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)