Talk:Insular Government of the Philippine Islands

Copied and pasted from where?

This was copied and pasted from somewhere but I just can't figure out where and therefore I do not know whether it is under copyright, though some edits have been made that have added to the original. Regardless it needs to be wikified -- some copyediting needs to be done; sections need to be added; missing information needs to be included; etc. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, it is not copyrighted. It's from History of the Philippines. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Then it is, indeed, copyrighted. Content on our projects is liberally licensed, but is copyrighted and must be attributed when copied elsewhere. I'll repair this, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but if you see content copy-pasted from one article to another, please try to help make sure it is compliant with the license...otherwise, we violate the rights of our own contributors. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Both seem to come from another, third source. It just doesn't read like original Wiki work reads. Maybe some CIA history book or some other source. Or maybe I am just wrong. Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Start date: 1901 vs 1902

The implication of the term "Insular Government" is not that the Philippines are a group of islands, but rather that this was a government under the authority of the Bureau of Insular Affairs. So the Spooner Amendment, which authorized the creation of a civilian government, is the logical start date. This law came into effect on July 1, 1901. I found newspaper references to "Insular Government" from July 1901 here and here. Kauffner (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense. 1901 was when Taft was appointed. Indeed there were two Governors-General then -- Taft, the civilian who ruled the peaceful areas, and Chaffee, the Army general, who ruled the conflict areas. See Governor-General of the Philippines. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Article title

The name "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" was used only in the titles of U.S. Supreme Court cases, as near as I can tell. It gets ten post-2000 hits on GBooks, all of them related to the various cases this government was involved in. Otherwise, this subject is called "Insular Government" or "Philippine Insular Government." "Insular Government" Philippine OR Philippines yields 1,200 post-2000 hits. The Organic Act and the Jones Law, as well as the banknotes and postage that were issued, just say "Philippine Islands." So they are no help. The 1916 Administrative Code is almost 900 pages long and uses the term "Insular Government" quite a bit. Here is an example: "'Insular Government' refers to the central Government as distinguished from the different forms of local government." (p. 1) But the code never uses the term "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands". Kauffner (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, I spotted the same issue even before your timely remarks. I've made some edits to better reflect the facts. Do you think the article should be moved to Government of the Philippine Islands? Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Commenting from the sidelines, I don't think that would be a good idea. For one thing that title would be generally presumed to refer to the current government of the Philippine Islands. Perhaps Government of the Philippine Islands (1901) or (1901–1935). I note that a title change would leave several hundred articles which wikilink to the current title using a redirect. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest either Insular Government (Philippines) or Philippine Islands (1901-1935). Unlike the current title, "Insular Government" and "Philippine Islands" are both names in widespread use. At the time, the Insular Government was the central government in contrast to the various local governments. But it works for this purpose as well, i.e. to retrospectively distinguish the 1901-1935 period from other periods.
The Commonwealth constitution of 1935 tells us that the name of the country is now "the Philippines" and no longer "Philippine Islands." As a practical matter, both phrases have been in use all along, as you can see here.
After looking at the Organic Act, I notice that it is full of overcapitalization (prescribed by the Government of said Islands). Section 23 mentions "the Philippine Government." So I would not conclude that the word "government" is part of a proper noun simply because it is capitalized. Great scott (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No argument re your suggestions. Yes, re the Commonwealth constitution. I note that the 1973, 1986 and 1987 constitutions style it as "Republic of the Philippines", but none of that is directly relevant to this article about an earlier government. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I see that the 1935 constitution also does the capital G nonsense: "Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines" (§15-1). I brought up this constitution because it appears that the authors were slyly promoting "Philippines Islands" as an era name. The distinction between "Philippines Islands" and "the Philippines" strikes me as quite subtle. I suspect it would pass most of our readers by if we tried to follow it. This is an argument in favor of using "Insular Government" even though the name "Philippine Islands" is far more common. Great scott (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't redirect work?

For some reason the link in the infobox to United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands does not redirect properly to the correct section on the history article. I do not know why. Clicking on the link in the redirect page works but when it is done automatically it does not work. Is this something odd with the Safari web browser or Mac OS? Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of preceding states

After reading the notes of Template:Infobox former country#Preceding and succeeding entities I have removed all preceding states from the template except of the Military Government. The Tagalog Republic, especially Note 6 which says "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. " and uses the Confederate States of America as an example. As for the Republic of Zamboanga, I think that is reason for removal is less definitive but I think that the comment "It is not the intention here to list every single previous/following entity—that would make the infobox look very silly in many cases." is applicable as is the "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient, since that is what most readers would expect to see.", contained in Note 1. Further the Republic of Zamboanga was not the only such republic. There is the Federal Republic of the Visayas and the Republic of Negros among many others. These "states" appeared in the transition period between the Spanish and Americans, during the power vacuum when the Spanish had withdrawn and the Americans have not arrived. It is unclear if anyone outside of the immediate clique that formed them recognized their existence. To put them in the Template is to imply a degree of stability and recognition that did not exist, I think. Mentioning them in the history of the Phil-American War would be the appropriate place, I think.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)