Talk:Commonwealth of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philippine History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philippine History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of History of 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wall[edit]

Huge wall of text. This page needs a cleanup. TheCoffee 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Citzens of the US?[edit]

Were Filipinos during the commenwealth era citizen of the US like Puerto Ricans are now? 4.142.126.88 05:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Eric

As far as I am aware, they were considered US Nationals but were not considered US Citizens.--207.114.206.48 02:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

coat of arms[edit]

Does anyone have a copy of the coat of arms from this period, the maiden in front of the volcano? It would be a nice illustration. Chris 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about Philippinescoinvolcano.jpg
Or would the arms more properly be this? PhilippinesCommonwealthcoa.jpg Chris 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The maiden is just an allegorical figure; the second figure is a crude version of the actual coat of arms of the commonwealth. Gareon 07:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you find a better one for the box in the article itself? Chris 10:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a version of the Coat of Arms on the 20 Piso Bill of the New Design Series. Also it can be found on the President of the Commonwealth flag of that period. But note that the shade of the blue is wrong.[1]--207.114.206.48 02:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Singular vs. Plural[edit]

The first paragraph states that when it became a commonwealth, "The Philippine Islands," plural, became "Philippines," singular, as an "expression of unity." This doesn't make any sense, and doesn't have a source. "Philippines" is still plural, it ends in "s," and today is still preceded by "the," as in, "The Philippines." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.222.177 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is singular. It is easy for something that ends in "s" to be grammatically singular. Consider the following example sentences: "The Phillipines has been an independent country since its independence day on July 4, 1946." (Singular verb "has" rather than "have".) "The Philippines is an island country in the Western Pacific Ocean." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.43.188 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"The Netherlands is a member of NATO, as is the United States."72.146.43.188 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
"The Philippines was a member of the former alliance SEATO, as was the United States."72.146.43.188 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The Commonwealth government was inaugurated on the morning of November 15, 1935, following the election of President Quezon and Vice President Osmeña (Zaide 1994, p. 319). The election was the first to take place under the 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. It seems to make sense to draw guidance regarding the name of the country during th Commonwealth period from the text of the 1935 constitution. That text uses the Philippines (singular)—e.g., "The Philippines comprises ...", "The Philippines, is a republican state", "The Philippines renounces ...", etc.
Reference
  • Zaide, Sonia M. (1994), The Philippines: A Unique Nation, All-Nations Publishing Co., ISBN 971-642-071-4 
-- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the same discomfort felt by the original poster. It seems clumsy and confusing to say that "The Philippines" is "quasi-singular" when, at first glance it looks like a different plural form. In fact the new form can be described simply as a collective noun, which therefore takes a singular noun, (like The Netherlands, as pointed out above).

The grammatical stuff could simply be omitted altogether, better emphasizing the moment of this important conceptual change. If a grammatical analysis seems essential, then the following is a better turn of phrase:

It marked the end of the colonial eras as well as the transition in nomenclature from the plural construction "Las Islas Filipinas" and "Philippine Islands" of the Spanish and American colonial periods, to the collective form "The Philippines". Monomoit (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

sovereign state[edit]

I do not doubt that the most recent edit is cited, however, there is no link to said citation to verify statement given in citation, and the Commonwealth does not meet guidelines stated in the Sovereign state wikiarticle:

In sociology, the state is normally identified with these institutions: in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.

capacity to enter into relations with other states

Is this an attempt of revisionist history? Even the date of independence and entry into commonwealth status has been changed in recent edits. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

effective date[edit]

The date which the Commonwealth of the Philippines began has been changed in recent edits. The new date is in question, as the Commonwealth was established the the Philippine Independence Act aka the TYDINGS-MCDUFFIE ACT. It states in its language that its effective date, and thus the establishment of the Commonwealth is as follows:

Effective Date Sec. 17. The foregoing provisions of this Act shall not take effect until accepted by concurrent resolution of the Philippine Legislature or by a convention called for the purpose of passing upon that question as may be provided by the Philippine Legislature.

1

As stated within the article said convention did not occur until May 14, 1935. By the letter of the law, that should be the date which the Commonwealth was established, even if it was proclaimed later2, it was legally in effect then. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious tags have been removed, without being discussed. Until consensus is reached, they will be readded to article, where removed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Section 4 of the Tydings McDuffie Act says:

After the President of the United States has certified that the constitution conforms with the provisions of this Act, it shall be submitted to the people of the Philippine Islands for their ratification or rejection at an election to be held within four months after the date of such certification, on a date to be fixed by the Philippine Legislature, at which election the qualified voters of the Philippine Islands shall have an opportunity to vote directly for or against the proposed constitution and ordinances appended thereto. Such election shall be held in such manner as may be prescribed by the Philippine Legislature, to which the return of the election shall be made. The Philippine Legislature shall by law provide for the canvassing of the return and shall certify the result to the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, together with a statement of the votes cast, and a copy of said constitution and ordinances. If a majority of the votes cast shall be for the constitution, such vote shall be deemed an expression of the will of the people of the Philippine Islands in favor of Philippine independence, and the Governor-General shall, within thirty days after receipt of the certification from the Philippine Legislature, issue a proclamation for the election of officers of the government of the Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands provided for in the constitution. The election shall take place not earlier than three months nor later than six months after the proclamation by the Governor-General ordering such election. When the election of the officers provided for under the constitution has been held and the results determined, the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands shall certify the results of the election to the President of the United States, who shall thereupon issue a proclamation announcing the results of the election, and upon the issuance of such proclamation by the President the existing Philippine Government shall terminate and the new government shall enter upon its rights, privileges, powers, and duties, as provided under the constitution. The present Government of the Philippine Islands shall provide for the orderly transfer of the functions of government.[2]

The article cites http://www.ssc.edu.ph/centennial%20website/SSC%201930-1939.htm at the end of the second paragraph of the lead section in support of the November 15 date. That source says, in part:

May 14: A plebiscite ratifying the independence agreement

Jul 10: Two hundred two (202) delegates to the constitutional convention are elected. Constitutional convention begins sessions on July 30 with Recto as the president

Nov 15: Inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. Manuel L. Quezon elected as the president for six-year term without reelection. By constitutional amendment, he was allowed to serve two additional years for a total of 8 years

In the Creation subsection, the November 15 date is mentioned again, citing (Zaide 1994, p. 319}, which I have just verified by checking a printed copy of that book.
I have fleshed out the ssc.edu.ph cite, added another online-verifiable supporting source, consolidate all thre supporting sources, anded cite all three supporting sources in the three places in the article where the November 15 date is mentioned.
The November 15 date looks correct to me. Unless you have a source which says otherwise, please remove the {{dubious}} tag(s). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So you are arguing that althought the effective date of the law doesn't matter, but the time which the law is carried out?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Websites that state otherwise: 1
One could also argue that the Commonwealth was established when its constitution was signed.TIME Magazine--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
On your first point, websites which state otherwise could be mistaken. If it is not clear that they are mistaken, the article can (and arguably should) include the information that some particular websites state otherwise. I don't see a claim on the website you pointed to that the Commonwealth of the Philippines government was inaugurated on any date other than November 15, 1935, but I imagine that websites making such a claim probably do exist.
Regarding your question of whether I am arguing that the effective date of the law doesn't matter, but the time which the law is carried out, the answer is "no". I am arguing that section 4 of the act, which I quoted above, explicitly sets forth the circumstances under which the new government would commence its authority; "... upon the issuance of such proclamation by the President [of the United States] the existing Philippine Government shall terminate and the new government shall enter upon its rights, privileges, powers, and duties, as provided under the constitution." I have added a cite of the proclamation itself to the article. The proclamation says, in part, "This Proclamation shall be effective upon its promulgation at Manila, Philippine Islands, on November 15, 1935, by the Secretary of War of the United States of America, who is hereby designated as my representative for that purpose." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

The Cambridge University source has many volumes. Here's volume 79 and 42, the source is an unknown voloume.

I don't find the word "Cambridge" in the article. Could you clarify what particular source in the article you are speaking of? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Page Move[edit]

The page has been moved from its previous article name, without the move being discussed. Why? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The same user moved it again today, also without discussion. Annoying. - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
And once again today. After reading WP:R, it doesn't appear to be an abusive redirect, however at the same time given that it is not keep with the official name, or the most commonly used name, and even without discussion, it looks like we shall continue repairing the redict, least we can get the user on a 3R rule. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I re-moved the article back to its original title and requested for RPP for page-move. Is it okay?--JL 09 q?c 12:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef move protection applied. If and when a clear consensus for moving/renaming develops just drop me a note (or another admin). Vsmith (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Commonwealth[edit]

There are some sources that specifically use the short form "Philippine Commonwealth" like this one [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decade19.asp A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers, Moscow], for example. --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That does not make it either official or common. - BilCat (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a source from the New York Times published in 1935. Just stop this nonesense bickering. you've lost.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 12:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Do we have to call somebody to resolve this dispute? User began to drop defamatory language.--JL 09 q?c 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'll be nicer if you stop reporting me and start discussing at talk pages...--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 12:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
23, no one is disputing that the term was not used, but rather was it the official name in English, or was it in common use. At this point, neither appears to be the case. - BilCat (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It was the official short designation for the entity as used in the United Nations. The name "Commonwealth" is also used as it is used in Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City, Metro Manila.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 12:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And the addition that it is commonly known as the Commonwealth, please keep in mind that there too many commonwealths existed. And the most common today is the British Commonwealth of Nations. Take note of the user's saying "There are some sources... ...use the short form..." implies that that is not the official name. Plus, UN is not yet existing during the Commonwealth. RP joined UN when they had Third Republic--JL 09 q?c 12:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
23prootie, we are discussing it at the talk page, but you still insist on moving the page without reaching a consensus, and that is really, really bad.--JL 09 q?c 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
23pootie, I can also site four sources that show that the more common usage was Commonwealth of the Philippines, or simply, as stated in the artilce The Commonwealth:
"ROOSEVELT DECREE FREES PHILIPPINES; He Signs Proclamation Read by Dern at Manila Fete of New Commonwealth. ALSO GREETS OFFICIALS In Addition President Will Visit Notre Dame Dec. 9 to Honor Filipino Leader.". New York Times. 15 November 1935. Retrieved 30 September 2009. THE HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HIS "WHITE HOUSE" AT MANILA. THE HEAD OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HIS "WHITE HOUSE" AT MANILA. ROOSEVELT DECREE FREES PHILIPPINES He Signs Proclamation Read by Dern at Manila Fete of New Commonwealth. ... 
"Roosevelt Order on Army". New York Times. 27 July 1941. Retrieved 30 September 2009. and by the corresponding- provision of the ordinance appended to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, I hereby call and order into the service of the armed forces of the United States for the ... 
THREATS AND RESPONSES: ASIAN ARENA; U.S. COMBAT FORCE OF 1,700 IS HEADED TO THE PHILIPPINES (21 February 2003). "THREATS AND RESPONSES: ASIAN ARENA; U.S. COMBAT FORCE OF 1,700 IS HEADED TO THE PHILIPPINES". New York Times. Retrieved 30 September 2009. Congress establishes the self-governing Commonwealth of the Philippines. 
Yet here is a source, that uses both phrases:
Herman Hass, William (1940). The American empire: a study of the outlying territories of the United States Essay Index Reprint Series. Ayer Publishing. p. 306. ISBN 9780836923193. Retrieved 01 October 2009.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
Given that both are citable from reliable sourced references, and thus both terms are verifiable, it appears that there needs to be consensus to support any page move. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly disagree in using the name "The Commonwealth" and I bet most of us here do also. So it's between "Philippine Commonwealth" and "Commonwealth of the Philippines". I'm for the former, because while the latter is more common, it is too akin to "Republic of the Philippines" and it implies a shortened form using the name "Philippines" (implying the republic) which might not be politically acceptable to some. --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 13:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast and BilCat: Right, a consensus will be okay if this issue grew bad. But, I can say that the Commonwealth, during its reigning glory, was referred to as Philippine Commonwealth (to disambiguate to the other commonwealths), or simply The Commonwealth by the US authorities that time. Even history books called it Philippine Commonwealth just for the reference of shortening the name. The thing is, Commonwealth of the Philippines was the official name of the entity. The official seal was named Commonwealth of the Phil, coins were minted by the name of that and paper bills are also printed with that name. If my interpretation is correct, 23prootie moved the page to Philippine Commonwealth because UN uses the naming convention that way. Well, I am not familiar with UN convention, but one thing is sure: that Philippines was not represented by the Commonwealth when they joined UN, but the republic instead. I cannot see any reason why the article should me named after the way it was nicknamed through documents and shorthand notations, I think so.--JL 09 q?c 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re to 23prootie: WP:OPINION says that the article should be managed not too POV, we must stick to historical facts.--JL 09 q?c 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should have worded it better, due to the generality of the term The Commonwealth, I too wouldn't support a change to that name. However, if there is a disambigous Commonwealth page, the Commonwealth of the Philippines should be included in that list. However, that being said, my support is the retention of the Commonwealth of the Philippines title, as it is the official one, and when reading text, I have found more usage of the official name predominate over the shortenned name, often used after the initial title is given to save ink. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In this edit (and perhaps earlier versions, and perhaps other articles on the Philippines in the post-Spanish era, is it appropriate to include the Spanish-language alternative name? Spanish was an official language of the Commonwealth, but this article (along with others having this issue) is directed at a modern readership on the english wikipedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Naming convetions[edit]

I really don't know what the hell you people are talking about so I'm going to restart the conversation right here.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 06:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with any one of you and since I can't really grasp what you are saying, I'll just ut my side here:
Based on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions here are the basic guidelines;
Deciding an article name
Article titles should name or describe the subject of the article and make Wikipedia easy to use. Article titles do this if they are:
* Recognizable - (the term "Commonwealth" is automatically disqualified by this rule, while both "Commonwealth of the Philippines" and "Philippine Commonwealth" still qualify)
* Easy to find - (I have to concede "Commonwealth of the Philippines" wins here over "Philippine Commonwealth" but only on a small margin)
* Precise – (Both qualify equally here)
* Concise – Keep it brief. ("Philippine Commonwealth" is obviously shorter than "Commonwealth of the Philippines").
* Consistent – (the articles First Philippine Republic and Second Philippine Republic share the name "Philippine" with the name "Philippine Commonwealth". The Philippines' official name is "Republic of the Philippines" yet uses the shorter "Philippines". In addition there is a "Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", which also adheres to the concept of using the name of the country before the word "Commonwealth".
In addition, article titles are constrained by unavoidable technical restrictions, including the necessity that titles be
* Unique for every article. - the name "X Commonwealth" is more unique than the common "Commonwealth of X".

There.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)Baybayin 06:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As the article had been created in the past, its name was already decided. As for fitting within naming conventions, seeing as how both are equally used, both are equally valid names, thus why I have been asking for a consensus on what name is to be used. The consensus so far has been for it to remain at Commonwealth of the Philippines. I understand that you mean well, however your actions of move warring and going against consensus are not being seen as helpful edits. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The Lead of the article has this paragraph:
It marked the end of the colonial eras as well as the transition of the nomenclature of the Philippines from the plural "Las Islas Filipinas" and "Philippine Islands" of the Spanish and American colonial periods, to the singular, "Philippines".
While I did remove some extra text that was Original Reserch, I think the rest is supportable by history. Using "Philippine Commonwealth" instead of "Commonwealth of the Philippines" loses the connection to that historical shift in usage. Also, use of the "Philipines" doesn't necesarily inmply the "Republic of the Philipines" (the national entity/government), and can legitimately refer to just the physical geography of the islands themselves. Thus the argument that "Philipines" should only refer to the "Republic of the Philipines" is somewhat of a straw dog. That reasoning is the basis of 23p's entire argument here, and really needs some sourcing to show this is even a issue that we should be avoiding. Again, CoP was the official name, and there needs to be something more than a seemingly-imaginary fear of confusion to warrant me changing my support of the current name. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article not moved, consensus is to not move the article ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)



Commonwealth of the PhilippinesPhilippine Commonwealth—Preceding unsigned comment added by Par0tT (talkcontribs)

The shorter name used here might be a better title due to its considerable use during the era of the Commonwealth:

The proposed name also mirrors a similar political body of the era, the Philippine Commission.

  • Oppose - Per the evidences given in the preceeding discussions, "Philippine Commonwealth" is neither the official title, not the most commonly used form, though it was an accepted short form. - BilCat (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Why? The proposed title is hardly shorter than the official name. — AjaxSmack 01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is still 8 characters shorter, 2 words less and is not a phrase making it easier to type.
  • This source found also above seems interesting: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Par0tT (talkcontribs) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The article cites http://www.ssc.edu.ph/centennial%20website/SSC%201930-1939.htm at the end of the second paragraph of the lead section in support of the November 15 date. That source says, in part:

May 14: A plebiscite ratifying the independence agreement

Jul 10: Two hundred two (202) delegates to the constitutional convention are elected. Constitutional convention begins sessions on July 30 with Recto as the president

Nov 15: Inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. Manuel L. Quezon elected as the president for six-year term without reelection. By constitutional amendment, he was allowed to serve two additional years for a total of 8 years

  • Oppose. Six letters and two spaces is not much of a reason for a move vis-à-vis WP:UCN. Official documents of the time use the current title (or similar). The Tydings-McDuffie Act refers to "Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands". The 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (18.1) refers to "Commonwealth of the Philippines". Franklin Roosevelt's "Proclamation 2148 - Establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines" refers to (naturally) "Commonwealth of the Philippines". Other more current sources also use this form. "Philippine Commonwealth", when used, is often used as a descriptive term rather than as the title of the government. — AjaxSmack 02:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, there is no prohibition against the use of a less formal name in describing the title of an article. Official public documents obviously use the "Commonwealth of the Philippines" but that doesn't exclude the use of other names. The Philippines is described as the the "Republic of the Philippines" in its official documents but that is not the name of the article, same goes with the United States (of America). The fact remains that historical documents such as newspapers of that time (1935-1946) widely used the name "Philippine Commonwealth" so that puts doubt in the argument that it is not a well-known name.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Par0tT (talkcontribs) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See Google searches [3] [4] which show me more than 3.5 million hits for the present title, and the first few are all relevant, and less than 24,000 for the proposed title (your results may differ but should be similar). More than 100 times requires explanation. Andrewa (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - Without the capitalisations and quotation marks philippine commonwealth - wikipedia got as many hits with about 3,180,000 results (0.04 seconds) so I don't see any problem. Besides a google search is less valid than The Montreal Gazette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Par0tT (talkcontribs) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The problem is very simple... by leaving out the quote marks, you've completely defeated the purpose of the search. You also incidentally appear to have defeated the -Wikipedia parameter, try [5] instead. But most important, both searches without the quotes get for example http://www.philippines-travel-guide.com/commonwealth-of-philippines.html as a hit, but the page doesn't contain the phrase Philippine Commonwealth (capitalised or un) anywhere, it consistently uses Commonwealth of the Philippines. That's the sort of hit the quotes were there to prevent. Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • If your reasoning is used with the "Commonwealth of the Philippines" title (in caps and with ""), only about 128,000 results (0.04 seconds) do appear. But that's besides the point, Google searches do not necessarily validate a title. The length of time that title has been used here in Wikipedia may have affected the searches therefore skewing the results. Mirror sites exist everywhere so there is no guarantee that one of them aren't being searched. The valid name for the article, therefore, remains a question, which of course could only be answered by historical documents, many of whom support the title "Philippine Commonwealth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Par0tT (talkcontribs) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Only because you've now left the "s" off "Philippines". See [6] , I get 2,320,000 results (0.33 seconds) and compare to [7] . Compliant mirrors will be excluded by the "-Wikipedia" search term, that's what it's there for. Agree that Google needs to be used with care, and sorry that two of my searches above were a bit strange, don't quite know what went wrong but I've struck them out, the ones in this post hopefully are OK. Disagree that the results will be seriously skewed in this case. Andrewa (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The rationale of the proposal is too weak to be accepted. This has been debated some time ago, the same topic. I suspect Par0tT is a sockpuppet of 23prootie, who cited the same websites (except Par0tT added some resources though, nevertheless, please account an SPI case against Par0tT). Except that Par0tT would tell us something or effect that this rename would give, then his reason would convince me at least one-fourth of my support. The reason that Philippine Commonwealth, is shorter and easier to type than the present title is not a valid reason, or at least, a very strong reason to move an article like this.--JL 09 q?c 07:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It is quite odd that this username's first edits were to propose changing the article's name. But to this point, they aren't being disruptive, so I don't know if a Checkuser op would be willing to run one yet. - BilCat (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet. You guys know who. Elockid (Talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh) In hindsight perhaps I was a bit slow on this. In hindsight the behaviour does look like low-level disruption. Sometimes it's hard to know how far to take WP:AGF (or if you like Hanlon's razor which says much the same). I've seen a lot of this recently. Andrewa (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It wasn't much of a disruption, so not much lost except a few minutes of our time. We follow good faith until it's proven otherwise, and also follow your gut when you have a hunch. Fortunately, we had an admin willing to look into the situation quickly, and prevent any further disruption. Anyway, we've upheld the previous consensus that the current title is the best one, so that is an accomplishment. All in all, not too bad. - BilCat (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blocked Par0tT sock and my recent reversions[edit]

I just botched and undid a reversion. I'm explaining it here because it loooks confusing in the article history. I had intended the revert for the Tydings–McDuffie Act, but clicked in the wrong open browser tab and reverted several edits to this article by mistake. When I saw that the revert results didn't match what I expected to see, I unreverted. At least some of the changes by the blocked sock look OK to me, but someone might want to revert all or part that. When I re-attempted to revert the other article, I found that Elockid had beaten me to the punch on that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names in lede[edit]

To say the "Commonwealth of the Philippines" was also the "Philippine Commonwealth" is a trivial point, one hardly worthy of cluttering up the opening sentence. If you are writing about Calvin Coolidge, you don't have to write that he was also "Calvin" and "Mr. Coolidge". WP:Lede#Alternative_names says "the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names", so there are currently too many alternative names in the lede. I don't see any reason to give a Spanish translation in the opening sentence. It undermines the box, which does a much better job with the language issue; Three names in parallel gives the reader a nice visual representation of three official languages. Kauffner (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the row about moving the article, keeping the arlternate is simply part a compromise solution. I'm not advocating it for all articles, but in this case, it makes sense. As to having the Spanish or Tgholog in Lead, it's usual practice to have the alternates in both the Lead and the Infobox, and they were both originally there. I'd rather not have them in the infobox, as it;s more "cluttery" there, but consensus on agaisnt me on that. - BilCat (talk)
Other encyclopedias don't generally put so many alternate names in the opening sentence. As I noted earlier, the practice also goes against Wiki's own standards. Other badly written wiki articles aren't a model to follow. But we could certainly create "names" section for this stuff. Kauffner (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Putting the alternate names in a seperate section would be a good solution, per the guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Second Republic in infobox[edit]

I am wondering, in the past the Second Philippine Republic was located in the infobox, however, it has now been completely removed. Is there a good reason why this is the case? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's messy and confusing. As I understand it, ignoring the NLF, the MNLF, the MILF, the NPA, informal insurgencies, the Sultanate of Sulu, and probably some number of other items which probably deserve mention, the post-Spanish governments of the Philippines break down something like the following:
  • 1898-1935: Insular Government of the Philippines, governing the Philippines as a U.S. territory.
  • 1899-1901: First Philippine Republic (1899-1901), an insurgent government which unsuccessfully waged the Philippine-American War against U.S. territorial sovereignty.
  • Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935-1946), the government under the 1935 Constitution[8]
  • Second Philippine Republic (officially the Republic of the Philippines), The government of the country under Japanese occupation during WW-II. The Commonwealth government maintained a government in exile during this period, and returned to power after the Japanese surrender. The constitution of this government[9] was repudiated by the returning commonwealth government, along with many actions undertaken under authority of this government.
  • Third Republic of the Philippine, The government beginning with the U.S. recognition of the Republic of the Philippines as an independent, sovereign nation on July 4, 1946, still using the 1935 constitution.
  • Marcos regime (1965–1986), during which a new constitution was taken up in 1973[10], and encompassing what is sometimes called the Forth republic of the Philippines (1981–1986)
  • The Freedom Constitution[11] period following the 1986 People Power Revolution.
  • The Fifth Republic of the Philippines, under the 1987 constitution[12].
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Commonwealth had a continuous existence, whether in the Philippines or in exile. The earlier version of the box implied that the Commonwealth did not exist in 1942 to 1945, which is incorrect. The box shows the continuous sequence of Commonwealth presidents. The earlier version was also unnecessarily confusing. I haven't seen any other box done in such a complex way. This article is after all about the Commonwealth, so the box should not put undue focus on the Second Republic. Kauffner (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency(s) Redirect[edit]

Shouldn't there be a redirect to the spacific issues of the spacific government of issue? (Ex. on the Commonwealth of the Philippines page from currency Peso to Coins of the Philippine Peso # Commonwealth issue) Or something like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.9.204 (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthem[edit]

It appears to me that there is uncertainty regarding what the anthem(s) of the Commonwealth of the Philippines was/were, and at what time(s).

However, after having done that, I have become uncertain about all of the above and about the reliability of the info in one of the sources I cited. For some detail on that, see Talk:Lupang Hinirang#Official status of The Philippine Hymn.

As I understand it, The Star Spangled Banner became the official national anthem of the United States on March 3, 1931, when 46 Stat. 1508 (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 301) was signed by President Herbert Hoover. 36 USC § 301 doesn't have any specifics about whether or not the anthem there designated is to be considered the anthem of U.S. territories as well as of U.S. states, but my guess is that that was the intent and that the Star Spangled Banner became the official anthem of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands on March 3, 1931 Washington D.C. time (I have no guess as to whether there was an official anthem prior to that or, if there was, what it might have been), and continued as the official anthem of the Commonwealth of the Philippines when that government was inaugurated on November 15, 1935 (Philippines time).

As described in the separate talk page discussion linked above, this source makes some assertions about subsequent changes to the anthem designated, and this source contradicts some of that. This suggests to me that this article needs some work re the designated anthem. As of now, however, I'm not at all clear about what changes are needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wtmitchell for wading into this, and adding sources to attempt to assist in things. Although angelfire source appears to be legit, angelfire user created pages may fall into the self-published source realm unless the creator is a known expert within their field, even if they are drawing on more reliable sources (do we have those available), also is nationalanthems.info a reliable source itself?
The Star Spangled Banner is the national anthem of the United States, and therefore its territories; but in this case the subject of this article, the Commonwealth of the Philippines is most definitely a sub-national semi-autonomous unit. It is my opinion, that as such, the "national anthem" in the infobox is akin to a "state song" or equivalent to La Borinqueña, the anthem of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (will continue this later, spouse is calling me for diner of lechon)--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
To continue, the question is does the U.S. national anthem need to be included in the infobox of one of its historic sub-national administrative units? If the Puerto Rico is to be considered the basis and is in keeping with MOS, then the answer is no. That being said, as I had stated in an edit summary of mine, there is no need to state that the future version of Lupang Hinirang being the national anthem during the third republic, as this article is about the Commonwealth period specifically.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that question. It does strike me, though, that the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner wouldn't have too much cultural connection to Puerto Rico or to the Philippines as Unincorporated territories of the United States acquired via the Treaty of Paris, nor to the Commonwealth of the Philippines.
Re the Philippine Hymn as an anthem, I've recently made this editedit to the Lupang Hinirang article removing that assertion there, and a corresponding edit to the the talk page there asserting essentially that the source cited in support of that assertion there and here appears unreliable on that point as it contradicts other sources which are arguably much more reliable on that point. Following on that, I've made this edit to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Commonwealth" vs. "Republic"[edit]

This edit, among other things, changed several instances of the term Republic to say "Commonwealth instead. One instance changed was in the title= field of a cite which reads, after the edit, as: "1935 Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines". Chan Robles Law Library. May 14, 1935. Retrieved 10 February 2007.  The cited source, however, actually titles itself as "1935 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES". I have edited the article to instead cite an alternative source: "The 1935 Constitution". Official Gazette. Government of the Philippines. February 8, 1935. 

I haven't messed with the changes from "Republic" to "Commonwealth" in the article body. With regard to whether the 1935 constitution was the constitution of a republic or of a commonwealth, see Article XVIII of the constitution which is the topic of this article, which reads:

SECTION 1. The government established by this Constitution shall be known as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the sovereignty of the United States and the proclamation of Philippine independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall thenceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines.

Perhaps the article ought to better clarify this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re-re-re-removal of Second Republic in infobox[edit]

Here, I have restored the infobox situation re the status of the Second Philippine Republic to its condition as of this January 10, 1011 version, subsequent to the discussion in the #Removal of Second Republic in infobox talk page section above.

Searching for mentions of the Seccond Republic in edit summaries of past edits, I see that subsequent to that aforementioned earlier discussion, I see that

  • this December 25, 2011 edit (rm "second philippine republic as successor/predessor) removed an infobox indication that the Second Republic was a successor state (I'm not sure when that indication was inserted)
  • this March 25, 2012 edit (removed Second Philippine Republic from successor list due to it ending before the commonwealth ended and commonwealth remaining active as GiE while Second Republic was active) removed an infobox indication that the Second Republic was a successor state (I'm not sure when that indication was inserted)
this April 15, 2102 edit ("Second Philippine Republic" is not a predecessor state) removed an infobox indication that the Second Republic was a preec essor state (I'm not sure when that indication was inserted)
this July 3, 2013 edit (Undid revision 562710503 by 14.192.210.223 (talk) The commonwealth had a continuous existence, even when it was in exile. Use of second republic flag has already been discussed in talk) undid yet another reinsertion.

My understanding is that the Second Republic was neither a predecessor state nor a successor state of the Philippine Commonwealth, as is explained in note b in the infobox and in the World War II section of the article. The infobox should not indicate that the Second Republic was either a predecessor state or a successor state of the Philippine Commonwealth. If you disagree, please discuss that disagreement here before editing the infobox to insert such an indication. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Insular Government was the predecessor of the Commonwealth, so why indicate that it succeded until the liberation? Darwgon0801 (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? Well, that was clearly a bit confusion on my part. I've been running my WP watchlist in an internet cafe lately as I'm currently in Romblon, Romblon and internet connectivity is really miserable here. I am sometimes doing that in a pretty chaotic atmosphere. It looks like I somehow must have had it in my mind that I was editing {{{p1}}} and not {{{s1}}} in the infobox. Looking back I see that confusion apparently began with this edit and was repeated here. Regardless of how it came about, though, naming the Insular Government as the successor government of the Commonwealth was clearly incorrect and that was clearly an error on my part. I see that the article currently says s1 = Second Philippine Republic and s2 = History of the Philippines (1946–1965); that s1 definition strikes me as technically incorrect, and the s2 definition strikes me as unhelpful.
Yes, the Commonwealth government was a government in exile during the WW-II Japanese occupation and, at some point (I don't have my reference books with me here in Romblon, and internet connectivity here is too awful to try to research the details when and how online) the Commonwealth government was restored as the sitting government. On July 4, 1946, shortly after the Commonwealth was restored as the sitting government, the U.S. recognized the Philippines as an independent sovereign nation, and the Commonwealth of the Philippines became an independent republic, with the sitting government succeeding itself in a transformed status and retaining its 1935 constitution. I don't think there is any disagreement over the broad strokes of history here. The question is how this ought to be indicated in the infobox of this WP article. Perhaps how this ought to be presented in the article body also needs some consideration.
I see that {{infobox former country}}, the infobox now used, has a notice on it that it is being merged with {{Infobox country}}. I don't know what the status of that merger is. For now, I think the best thing to do would be to change the {{{s2}}} declaration to Third Philippine Republic, which renders better than History of the Philippines (1946–1965) as the name of a successor government and which redirects to that article. I have boldly done this, and I've also made some corrections/changes to footnote b in the infobox. I do think that more needs to be done to better clarify here the sequence of sitting governments, but I am not clear on precisely what and I'm not going to get into that in my current circumstances re reference material access and internet connectivity. If there is disagreement about that, please discuss further or make appropriate further edits. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commonwealth of the Philippines. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Official languages[edit]

I have reverted a good faith edit, marked minor, that changed Filipino to Pilipino. Whether the language is a F or P differs depending on the reliable sources. That said looking at what the official languages of the Commonwealth were (largely influencing what the official languages are today), we should look at what reliable sources say, per WP:VER. One source currently used right now does say Pilipino, specifically. That said I have found other source(s) that differ. These, say Tagalog language, is the basis of (and it could be comprehended as is) the third official language of the Commonwealth:

This source only list it as "national language":


Upon further reading of the source presently used in the article

It is actually talking about the 1973 constitution and not the 1935 constitution, which falls within the scope of this article. Therefore, perhaps there needs to be more edits than just my reversion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, this source says that Pilipino was not given a name until 1959, and thus how could it be the name of the official language from 1935 until 1946 if it was not even named?

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The infobox in the now-current revision of this article lists English, Spanish, and Filipino as official languages.

  • This essay, titled Reflecting on the Limits of a Nationalistic Language Policy, which describes itself as advocating the introduction of Tagalog as the sole official language, is cited in support of the first two.
  • The 1935 constitution is not cited in support of the first two, but Article XIV, Section 3 reads, "The Congress shall take steps toward the development and adoption of a common national language based on one of the existing native languages. Until otherwise provided by law, English and Spanish shall continue as official languages."
  • Two sources is cited in support of the assertion that Filipino was an official language of the Commonwealth.
  • Book pages 64-68 contain sections on Language Policy and The Lack of Constitutional Continuity. Pages 64-67 do not appear to support the assertion that Filipino was an official language of the Commonwealth. Page 68 is not previewable online.
  • Page 6 of this source also does not appear to support the assertion that Filipino was an official language of the Commonwealth.

I suggest that Filipino not be asserted to have been an official language of the Commonwealth unless that assertion can be verifiably supported by a cited reliable source. Ditto Pilipino. Ditto Tagalog. I also suggest that the assertions that Spanish and English were official languages of the Commonwealth cite a reliable supporting source which clearly supports those assertions. See WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I agree. All the reliable sources verify that the 1935 constitution list two official languages, English and Spanish. I have yet to find a reliable source that verifies that Tagalog, Filipino (Pilipino) were designated as official languages for the Commonwealth of the Philippines. It is verified that the constitution calls for the creation of a national language, but that is not an official language.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)