Talk:Denmark–Philippines relations

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 November 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑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:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Irrelevant material

A lot of material that is at best only tangential to "the bilateral relationship between Denmark and the Philippines" is being dumped into the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example...? No one can counteract your point if we don't know what you deem irrelevant.--TM 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any issue that does not involve a relationship between the Danish government and the Phillipine government (i.e. a "bilateral relationship" between the two). Examples would include activities of NGOs, private commercial ventures, private individuals, etc as one or both parties. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relations are much more than just government interaction. It includes government-enabled programs, such as migration, commercial ventures and charities. Would you really argue that we shouldn't mention Mexican immigration to the US because it doesn't directly involve the US and Mexican governments?--TM 14:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but taking too broad a definition of "relationship" results in indiscriminate articles -- which is why the lead narrows the article down to a specific topic -- "bilateral relations". I would argue that 'US–Mexican relations' should not discuss the activities of individual Americans, and individual American NGOs or corporations in Mexico, or the immigration of individual Mexicans to the US. It should however discuss discussions, agreements and/or disputes between the US and Mexican governments relating to immigration. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except when those relations are facilitated by the governments through a bilateral relationship. Workers generally do not just "show up" somewhere. Indeed, I have posted articles from Denmark that show a bilateral relationship brought the Filipino workers to that country and thus such information is directly related to this article.--TM 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should cover those "bilateral relationships"/agreements with WP:DUE weight to their significance to the two countries -- remembering that thousands of minor agreements are entered into each year -- most of which will have minimal significance. I don't think au pairs will bring either country to a standstill. So an agreement of them should not be given the same emphasis as major mutual defence treaty, or a free trade agreement (for example). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your earlier statement Hrafn. Information that shows integration between the two states puts relations into context and are relevant. These often have a barring on diplomatic relations. An example I can think of is Trade between the two countries. They are often not direct work of the government but effect the relationship. Outback the koala (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outback the koala: and I consider your disagreement to be utterly without merit. Denmark and the Philippines (i) have never engaged in a war (ii) do not have significant trade, (iii) are not/were not allies, (iv) do not share a border, (v) have not been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict & (vi) have not been engaged in a significant trade dispute. Therefore there is no significant "relations" needing to be put "into context". There is simply a scattering of indiscriminate WP:IINFO minutae typical of low-level interaction, giving "context" to nothing beyond itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably keep our discussion to the Afd page. Either way, I reject your Wikiproject suggestion page - it is clearly not policy. Outback the koala (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I am also tagging the list of utterly insignificant agreements in the article. They're the sort of thing that only the Under-under-under-secretary for Nothing-in-particular would find even remotely noteworthy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loans

Denmark and the Philippines have GDPs of $200 & 160 billion respectively. Could anybody tell me how in context of this, loans of 30/40 Million Kroner -- $5/7 million -- or approx 0.004% of Philippine GDP, are remotely significant? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia in the lead

Tell me, why does a visit by a mere senator, which received only a column-inch or two in the cited source (i.e. very little WP:WEIGHT), deserve inclusion, not just in the article, but in this article's WP:LEDE? Thousands of such visits occur every year by politicians of one country to another. They are routine, and so is coverage of them and "routine news reporting" is WP:NOT "suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

Is a self-serving PR-blurb by a consulting company a WP:RS? I wouldn't have thought so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, are the "Toast Remarks" made by some, apparently anonymous, individual, at a party at an undisclosed location (presumably somewhere in Asia) celebrating the Danish Queen's birthday, a WP:RS on the status of Denmark–Philippines relations? Even putting aside the lack of specifics on the source, and the fact that it's clearly a primary source -- such speeches tend towards the hyperbole rather than being objective assessments. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the 'Jihad Watch' blog of Robert Spencer would appear to be, at best, a WP:QS -- and so not suitable for material about third parties. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, "Far Eastern economic review. University of Michigan: Review Pub. Co. 1974. p. 96. ISBN 0275087700." is not listed under that ISBN on WorldCat, the Google Books does not list an author or a publisher, and its snippet implies that the Philippines wishes to sell more of the list of produects given -- not necessarily that these are its current biggest exports. As such, it is very unclear as to whether this is either a reliable source, or that it verifies the claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the Internet Book Database and Amazon say that this ISBN belongs to China and the Great Powers: Relations With the United States, the Soviet Union, and Japan, not Far Eastern economic review. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of scholarly third party commentary

If this relationship is notable, then why have no scholars of international relations commented on its importance to either country? All we have is WP:PRIMARY source information on a grab-bag of trivial agreements, and NGO activities. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Denmark–Philippines relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.philembassy.no/book/export/html/53
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ops.gov.ph/copenhagen2009/backgrounder.htm#Overview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Denmark–Philippines relations. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]