Talk:Philippine Declaration of Independence

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 12, 2007, June 12, 2008, June 12, 2009, and June 12, 2010.

Tambayan Philippines: History Top‑importance

	Philippines portal 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:Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philippine history task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Dirty Translation

I replaced the previous translation, which apparently was just copied from an online source with numerous typos, with the same translation, but from a more reliable source. This source, however, since it was a digitized version had some garbage, including "ominuos joke." I found another translation where it appears as "ominous yoke." Links to the original document and two translations are available here.

Was this someone's idea of a yoke?

I took the liberty of changing "joke" to "yoke" in Paragraph 3 of the declaration. This appears to me to be a likely mistranslation, and google does turn up a version in which this is "yoke."

Also, removed references to Constitution and Republic in earlier version, as these don't appear to have been a part of the Declaration204.9.158.39 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not recognized??

Do we have to keep mentioning 'not recognized? I doubt that the USA was recognized by the British as a nation when they were revolting. Or Peru, Mexico Bolivia etc by Spain when they were striving for independence. Nor Do I expect Spain or the US to recognize Aguinaldo, the First republic, and June 12. Of course! The dominating/colonizing nation would not agree to a rebelling nation. The US defines the revolution as an insurection. So is there any need to say 'not internationally recognize'. If we have to, it would be more accurate to say 'not recognized by the U.S.A.'--Jondel 05:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please

Whether recognized by the United States or not, the Philippines gained independence June 12, 1898. When independence was declared, we didn't need recognition from the US or from anybody. The Americans stayed because they were an emerging superpower and they needed a colony in the Pacific. The US President then said it so himself in an interview published after this death. The Americans stayed because they needed access to trade in Asia. But as far as the Filipinos then were concerned, they were here as guests, not as colonizers. They approached Gen. Aguinaldo in Hongkong promising aid. But when the Spanish stronghold in Manila finally fell to the Filipino rebel forces, the Americans claimed victory.

Please Wikipedia people, your website is one of the best online references available to the world, educate the world about our true history. June 12, 1898 is a very important date for us Filipinos. Today, June 12 is a celebrated occasion. July 4 on the other hand, is just an ordinary date in the calendar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.87.196 (talk • contribs) 14:25, June 10, 2007

Agree.Ancientsteppe (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the difference regarding "we didn't need recognition from the US or from anybody", I think that the relevant WP articles generally provide ~~content reflecting~~ good content covering the above.

Re sovereignty, see the WP article on that topic.
Re why the Americans stayed, see the Schurman Commission article, History of the Philippines (1898-1946)#First Philippine Commission, Treaty of Paris (1898)#Negotiations and (probably) other articles.
Re what the US President (McKinley, presumably) said, if info on this is missing from WP please cite a source (preferably one viewable online) which gives details.
Re "They approached Gen. Aguinaldo in Hongkong promising aid", as far as I know (but I'm not a historian), this "approach" is documented very poorly -- mention of it has been in and out of some relevant WP articles. As I understand (and I haven't spent much time re-researching this) it, the story is that the "They" there is the person of a Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy named R.V. Hall, (See [1], [2]) or, possibly, naval commander Edward Parker Wood of the USS Petrel (see [3] and [4]), who are said by some sources to have approached Aguinaldo before Dewey's Asiatic Squadron left Hong Kong after the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, to have made him some sort of offer, and to have assured him that the United States had no interest in possessing the Philippines. On what sort of authority either of these persons might have done that on behalf of the U.S. government, I don't know, nor do I know why Aguinaldo might have accepted that either of these persons were credibly making offers or assurances on behalf or the U.S. government.
Re the fall of the Spanish stronghold in Manila, see the WP article on Battle of Manila (1898).

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what the f?

ok. so which racist mutha f***** wrote monkeys, bananas, and rats on the headings on this page? please change it back top the way it was. I find that racist and insulting because im a Filipino myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.147.0 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Centennial.png

Image:Centennial.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The independence of the Philippines.

Today,June 12, 2008, the Filipinos are celebrating thier 110th independence day anniversary. In Baguio City, they have placed the biggest and largest philippine flag at the athletic bowl. (those are some data about our independence day today) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.87.133 (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Php bill 5 back.jpg

The image Image:Php bill 5 back.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Philippine Declaration of Independence (the physical paper) currently located?

Does anyone know where the Philippine Declaration of Independence (the physical paper) currently located? I believe that info should be included in the article. Galacticninja (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the wikipedia article on the National Library of the Philippines, the proclamation is there --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find confirmation of that however. Nor have I come across how people might actually see it. --Bruce Hall (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of history and text sections

The history section needs to be expanded with more information on the reaction to the declaration itself (not a history of the Philippine-American War). Also there needs to be a section on the text discussing its meaning, its influences and what it subsequently influenced. I do not think that the text needs to be added since a full text is available at Wikisource but substantial quotes can be given. Does any discussion of signers need to be added? What about discussing the appointment of Aguinaldo as dictator? --Bruce Hall (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added back hatnote on 1946

Imagine that you know nothing about Philippine history but you hear about "Philippine Independence" and google it. You might end up here, and you might be confused or ignorant of that fact that Philippine Independence came 50 years after what is called Philippine Independence Day. Certainly it is reasonable to assume that some portion of Wikipedia readers would be so confused. To help, I added in a hatnote linking to Philippine Independence. It was changed by one editor and then deleted by another because, I believe, I wasn't clear about the reasons for the hatnote. So I added it back in and have added this explanation. I believe that the note is necessary but I am not sure if everyone sees it the way I do and I am open to changing my mind, especially if the consensus is that we shouldn't have any reference to Philippine Independence in a hatnote. Comments? --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philippine Declaration of Independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512212522/http://www.bibingka.com/phg/documents/jun12.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/phg/documents/jun12.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Php bill 5 back.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating a Digital and Non-Digital Resource

Scenario: A teacher in Metro Manila, Philippines, wants to select resources for a high school history class focusing on Philippine independence.

1. Digital Resource: Wikipedia Article on "Philippine Independence"

• Content Evaluation:

◦ Accuracy: The teacher checks the article's facts against primary sources and reputable history books. Some minor inaccuracies are found and corrected.

◦ Relevance: The article directly addresses the topic of Philippine independence, making it highly relevant.

◦ Clarity: The article is well-organized with clear headings and subheadings, making it easy to understand.

◦ Comprehensiveness: The article covers key events, figures, and the historical context of Philippine independence adequately.

• Technical Evaluation:

◦ Accessibility: Wikipedia is generally accessible on various devices and offers features for users with disabilities.

◦ Usability: The site is easy to navigate, with a search function and internal links.

◦ Interactivity: Users can edit the article, though the teacher advises students to be cautious and verify information.

◦ Design: The design is clean and functional, though not particularly engaging.

• Credibility Evaluation:

◦ Author/Source: Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, so authorship is distributed. The teacher emphasizes the importance of checking the references and citations.

◦ Currency: The article is regularly updated, ensuring the information is relatively current.

◦ Objectivity: The teacher notes that Wikipedia articles can be subject to bias and encourages students to compare the information with other sources.

◦ Purpose: The purpose is to provide information, but the teacher cautions students to be aware of potential biases and inaccuracies.

• ACTIONS Model:

◦ Access: Easily accessible to students with internet access.

◦ Cost: Free.

◦ Teaching and Learning: Supports learning by providing a broad overview of the topic.

◦ Interactivity and Ease of Use: Easy to use but limited interactivity.

◦ Organizational Issues: Aligns with the curriculum but requires critical evaluation.

◦ Novelty: Not particularly innovative.

◦ Speed: Quick access to information.

2. Non-Digital Resource: "A History of the Philippines" by Teodoro Agoncillo

• Content Evaluation:

◦ Accuracy: Agoncillo is a respected historian, and his work is considered authoritative. The teacher verifies key facts against primary sources.

◦ Relevance: The book provides in-depth coverage of Philippine history, including the independence movement, making it highly relevant.

◦ Clarity: The writing is scholarly but accessible to high school students.

◦ Comprehensiveness: The book offers a comprehensive account of Philippine history.

• Physical Evaluation:

◦ Condition: The teacher checks the book for wear and tear, ensuring it is in good condition for students to use.

◦ Layout: The book is well-organized with clear chapters and subheadings.

◦ Illustrations: Includes historical photographs and maps that enhance understanding.

◦ Binding: The book is well-bound and durable.

• Credibility Evaluation:

◦ Author/Source: Teodoro Agoncillo is a highly respected historian.

◦ Currency: While the book was written some time ago, it remains a foundational text. The teacher supplements it with more recent scholarship.

◦ Objectivity: Agoncillo's work is generally considered objective, though the teacher encourages students to consider different perspectives.

◦ Purpose: The purpose is to provide a comprehensive historical account.

• SECTIONS Model (Adapted):

◦ Students: Suitable for high school students in terms of reading level and content.

◦ Ease of Use: Easy to read and navigate.

◦ Cost: Requires purchase or access through a library.

◦ Teaching and Learning: Supports in-depth understanding of Philippine history.

◦ Interactivity: Limited interactivity compared to digital resources.

◦ Organization: Well-organized and aligned with curriculum goals.

◦ Networking: Can be used as a basis for class discussions and research projects.

◦ Security and Privacy: No security or privacy concerns.

Conclusion

• Digital Resource (Wikipedia): Useful for quick access to information and a broad overview. Requires critical evaluation due to potential inaccuracies and biases.

• Non-Digital Resource (Agoncillo's Book): Provides a more in-depth and authoritative account. Requires supplementing with more current scholarship but offers a solid foundation for understanding Philippine history.

Principles Applied and Resource Evaluation

1. Tendency:

◦ Principle: Neutral sources do not exist; all sources have interests and agendas. Source material is affected by its creation context.

◦ Application: Wikipedia articles are collaborative and can be influenced by various editors with different viewpoints. The "Philippine Independence" article may lean towards certain interpretations of historical events based on the editors involved and the sources they prioritize.

◦ Evaluation: I considered who might have contributed to the article and what their potential biases could be. I checked the talk page for discussions about neutrality and differing viewpoints.

2. Interpretation:

◦ Principle: Source materials always include some degree of interpretation. The user always interprets the source material.

◦ Application: The Wikipedia article presents an interpretation of Philippine independence based on available sources. My own understanding and background also influence how I interpret the article.

◦ Evaluation: I examined whether the article relied on interpretations of other source material and how my knowledge of Philippine history influenced my understanding.

3. Relations:

◦ Principle: Sources never exist in a vacuum; they are affected by their relations to other sources.

◦ Application: The Wikipedia article links to various sources, including primary documents, academic articles, and other websites. The credibility of the article depends on the authenticity and reliability of these sources.

◦ Evaluation: I checked the linked sources to ensure they were reputable and supported the claims made in the article. I looked for a balance of sources representing different perspectives on Philippine independence.

4. Omission:

◦ Principle: Source materials are always incomplete; assessing what’s not in the source material is as important as assessing what is present.

◦ Application: The Wikipedia article may not cover all aspects of Philippine independence in detail. Certain perspectives or events might be omitted or underrepresented.

◦ Evaluation: I considered what other information or sources might be relevant but were not included in the article. I also thought about whose perspective might be missing from the narrative.

Resource

• Resource Evaluated: Wikipedia article on "Philippine Independence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Declaration_of_Independence 122.54.110.177 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]