Talk:Treaty of Paris (1898)

provisions

What were the provisions of the Treaty of Paris of 1898? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.69.134.250 (talk • contribs)

recommendations

I highly recommend to remove the phrase "having been thought themselves free". It is defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.171.168 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using ~~~~.

defamatory: "tending to disgrace or lower public opinion of a person or to harm a person's reputation" The US invaded the Philippines, which wanted independence, set up concentration camps, and killed between 100,000 to 200,000 people. And you suggest that saying "having been thought themselves free" is defamatory? Defamatory against who? America?

Aguinaldo wanted independence, and the Filippinos overwhelmingly supported the resistance.[1]

This is a historically accurate comment. What is truly sad is how you seem to be whitewashing the invasion with your words.

Your early revision was: "The phrase does not only have bias but it is also highly insulting."

First, there is plenty of basis, see my comments above, and what is insulting is your jingoist zeal and ignorance of this period of history. Travb 09:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

See Wikipedia:vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.171.168 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts using ~~~~.

In regards to:

Please take note of vandalism 18/12/05

Travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insult to Filipinos "having thought themselves free" 09:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC). Please see articles's history and discussion Treaty of Paris (1898).61.69.171.168

My response: This is NOT vandilism, I edited the sentence, and then he edited it back, and I gave up on the silly edit war, and let him have the sentence intact, anon needs to read the definition of vandilism better, because my edits are clearly NOT vandalism.

Anon, you obviously are sloppy in your reading:

First you exclaim that there was no basis in what I write, so I wrote a retort of this, showing clearly that the vast population supported the indepence movement and not America's invasion.

Then you clearly do not read the guidelines for for vandlism and post me, for the first time, as a "vandal".

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress: When NOT to use this page: Edit wars - content disputes must go through the appropriate dispute resolution process"

Again, as I wrote in the edit, this is not worth my time to argue about one sentence with a juvenile jingoists. You can have your one sentence.Travb 10:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

$20 million

There is a debate on whether or not the Philippines was purchased from Spain for $20 million in 1898 (equivalent to 481,000,000 in 2005 currency). The facts are as follows: (1) The Spanish-American war ended with Spain giving up most of its territories in Asia and the Carribean Sea. (2) In the aftermath of the war before the treaty was held, the US being the victor, had conquered Guam, the Philippine islands, and the other territories. (3) since the US had already conquered the Philippine islands Spain had permitted the US use of the ports and of the city of Manila (except for the southern regions ie Visayas and Mindanao) (4) Since Spain had refused to give up the entire archipelago, the US had offered $20 million.

The payment was not intended to purchase land but acted as a gift offering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.29.4 (talk • contribs)

Source it from a scholar, and include it in the article, if you wish. But it sounds like unproductive speculation to me. The bottom line is America got the territory from Spain.Travb 03:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

unproductive speculation? do your research, and you will find the right answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.233.122 (talk • contribs)

Let me repeat myself: "Source it from a scholar" Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Travb 08:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To say that "Cuba, which Spain was more than willing to cede to the U.S." is the most misleading statement I have ever read. Spain went to war over Cuba, remember? I'm removing it. Please feel free to let me know if it isn't appropriate. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above "source it from a scholar". Without solid sourcing, I'm not comfortable with the statement or even the implication that this was a simple purchase. Even with scholars, viewpoints may differ, and differences need to be accommodated (see WP:DUE). In one non-scholar source that is fairly detailed about this[2], p.171 does assert that there was a suggestion of "offering Spain ten or twenty million dollars for the islands" [3], p. 171-172 later describe SecState Hay messaging in re making any payment at all about McKinley's feelings towards a "duty to humanity". I've edited the Note to remove the words "for a payment" because "for" suggests tit for tat, and I don't think that's clear. Without solid sourcing, all this is WP:OR. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Digging around, I found Coletta, Paolo E. (1961). "McKinley, the Peace Negotiations, and the Acquisition of the Philippines". Pacific Historical Review. 30 (4). University of California Press: 341–350 – via Jstor. McKinley had submitted treaty provision that Spain cede the Philippines and that the Un States pay Spain for 'outstanding indebtedness for permanent investments of a pacific character' (pp:347-348). This jibes with mentions I vaguely recall seeing elsewhere attributing the $20M payment to reimbursement to Spain for pre-war investment in Philippine infrastructure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Editorial vs reliable source

Language such as "merely an assertion of the conditions", etc., lacking reliable sources (to reflect consensus of historians) appears to be injection of opinions by the editors. Recommend concentrating on the sources and leaving editorial opinions to personal blogs Tedickey (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Treaty was signed after United States had won the war and occupied all those territories, so there was no other option for Spain but to accept the conditions. Not even one of the amendments proposed by Spain were accepted, as opposed to all conditions stated by the US being "agreed" upon.

So, yes, it definitely was just "an assertion of the conditions", that's not a point of view but an unbiased view of the historical facts. Don't really feel the need to cite reliable sources, but I will do anyway in good faith.

As for your recommendations, I'd suggest that you practice what you preach yourself by concentrating on sources and trying to learn about matters you ignore, before deleting any passages. Otherwise it looks as if you had adopted the point of view of deleting anything you don't have the time to research about.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi - in addition to your other issues, another area for improvement would be to learn how to read the editing history (of mine, for instance), and to keep in mind that your editing history is also easy to read. Tedickey (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tedickey, As I have already explained to you before, you really should get into the habit of practicing what you preach.

Please read the Wikipedia:Five pillars and learn to:

"Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks."

Also recommended for you is Wikipedia:Verifiability, specially the part that explains that "not everything need actually be attributed", as such is the present case, where the nature of the Treaty itself, its context and the outcome are more than sufficient proof that it was "merely an assertion of the conditions".

It appears that you still have LOTS to learn and many areas to improve upon. I'd suggest that for your own good and that of the Wikipedia in general, learn first about the principles of the project and how to behave in a proper manner with fellow Wikipedians before attempting to do any more edits.

Thank you so much for your cooperation.

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

West Indies

The article says Spain "Surrendered Puerto Rico and gave up its possessions in the West Indies." Which islands in the West Indies are they referring to besides those explicitly mentioned? And what happened with those islands; were they put under control of the US or did they become independent like Cuba? Nearwater (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Article II of the treaty says simply, "Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones." (Article I covers Cuba, Article II covers the Philippines) There is no more detail than that in the treaty. The Spanish West Indies article just mentions Cuba and Puerto Rico (and, I would say, mischaracterizes the details for both). Puerto Rico#Geography, Geography of Puerto Rico and List of islands of Puerto Rico have some more information. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have said I also read the treaty. I was surprised that it wasn't more specific. There must be some other source out there that clarifies it.Nearwater (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Article content moved here 2014--09-12

I've moved the following content here for discussion. It was added to the Treaty provisions section by this reverted edit.

The US never complied with the provisions of the Treaty. The Spanish Parliament did not ratify the Treaty, because it did not consider the opinion of the constituents on the Overseas territories being ceded, in relations to their automatic loss of Spanish Citizenship.

I have several problems with this

1. It doesn't seem to belong in the Treaty provisions section of the article.
2. The first sentence needs clarification and support.
3. The second sentence ignores the fact that the Queen Regent signing the treaty mooted its rejection by the Courtes.
4. The asserted reason for rejection by the Courtes needs support, including support re the implication that this was the sole reason for its rejection by the Courtes.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Muslim sultanates issue section

I've added a {{Cleanup rewrite}} hatnote to this section, saying: "unencyclopedic wikivoicey style, needs specific pagenos in cites more closely matched with assertions". I do not have access to the cited source for reverification, am not familiar with the specifics here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I did some copy-editing of that section to tighten the prose and, hopefully, to remove some less than encyclopedic language. It doesn't seem to me to be using wikivoice inappropriately. Are there specific sentences that you see as problematic? Indyguy (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)