Talk:Treaty of Manila (1946)

Untitled
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 [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE7DF1E38F930A15756C0A9649C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Bush,%20George%20W. 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)

Requested move 28 February 2016

 * 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  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

– Common name; primary topic. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Treaty of Manila (1946) → Treaty of Manila
 * Treaty of Manila → Treaty of Manila (disambiguation)


 * Comment this has nothing to do with COMMONNAME. The current and proposed title are the same under COMMONNAME considerations, since COMMONNAME is the portion before disambiguation. The parenthetical disambiguator does not affect COMMONNAME considerations. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the nominator claims to be retired but shows a large amount of activity (thousands of edits in the last month); and apparently has been informed about the meaning of COMMONNAME before, so should already be aware that it is the wrong rationale. The nominator has also been blocked -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose very bad idea. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Flawed logic. Also the nom has been blocked for disruption related to page moves.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As IP 70 has said, COMMONNAME does not apply to this move proposal, and there is no evidence provided as to why this is the primary topic. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.

Added "Limitations" section
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)

Fleshed out the "Background" section and added "Treaty Provisions" section
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)

Edits to the Background section
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)
 * I removed a citation of the WP Philippine Declaration of Independence article as a supporting source.
 * I removed an assertion saying that Filipino rebels had already gained control of the entire Philippine archipelago with the exception of Intramuros by the time of the battle, and the cite of the WP Philippine Revolution article in support. That article does not support the assertion, and WP articles are not reliable sources in any case.
 * The article asserted that the May 1 battle marked the fall of Spanish inshore defenses in the Philippines and the alliance between American troops and Aguinaldo's Philippine Revolutionary Army. At the time of the battle, Aguinaldo was in Singapore intending to travel onwards to Paris and the PRA had been transformed into an irregular force as a result of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato. I tried to clear that up.
 * I removed an assertion saying that Aguinaldo's declaration of Philippine independence formed the First Philippine Republic and ended 333 years of Spanish colonial rule; it did not do either of those things.

Problem in background section on Japanese Occupation, edit needed
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)
 * I agree, and I have WP:BOLDly moved that paragraph here for discussion:

"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." Thus the Japanese occupation may have aided the post-war move towards independence."


 * Please, if editors disagree with this removal, discuss further here before restoring it. Please look at the cited supporting source before that, though. I note that that part of the source (around page 172) says, a bit further on:

"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, ..."


 * I gather from page 170 of that source that Blumentritt said this in the context of a 1908 meeting in honor of Jose Rizal. Perhaps this could be usefully mentioned in other WP articles, but it does not seem to have much topical relevance here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Trimming the Background Section
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)
 * That needs discussion, I think, with bias leaning towards WP:SS. I've added mention of the Philippine–American War and a wikilink to that article into the Initial considerations of independence section. There is some content with detail about that in History of the Philippines (1898–1946) starting around the paragraph beginning with: "Every year from 1907 ...".


 * I've also removed the phrase "Despite U.S. imperial ambitions," which is unsupported and, I think, POV. That viewpoint is supportable, as are alternative viewpoints (see WP:DUE re such supportable alternative viewpoints), but this doesn't seem to me to be the best venue for opening up that can of worms. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 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)
 * Re-reading this section, I disagree with the assertion above that its Background section is sorely in need of a section on the Philippine-American war and the post-war insurgency. In fact, I'm leaning towards opining that such details are irrelevant to this article and that the Background section ought to start out with a mention of the 1934 Tydings–McDuffie Act that established the process for the Philippines to become an independent country after a ten-year transition period.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)