This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 24, 2009, November 15, 2009, November 15, 2010, November 15, 2011, November 15, 2015, and November 15, 2020. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huge wall of text. This page needs a cleanup. TheCoffee 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 later 2, it was legally in effect then. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 11:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
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]
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
The Cambridge University source has many volumes. Here's volume 79 and 42, the source is an unknown voloume.
The page has been moved from its previous article name, without the move being discussed. Why? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:48, 20 July 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)
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)
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. ...
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 ...
Congress establishes the self-governing Commonwealth of the Philippines.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)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)
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)
There.-- ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ ( ᜂᜐᜉ) Baybayin 06:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
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 Philippines →
Philippine Commonwealth — —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Par0tT (
talk •
contribs)
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.
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
Note: Requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet. You guys know who. Elockid ( Talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
{{{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.{{{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)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}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted a good faith , 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.
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)
Here, I've reverted this recent edit. That reverted edit included an invisible comment saying, "Please see talk page discussion at "Re-re-re-removal of Second Republic in infobox" before changing this". OK, I've re-read that section above. As I said there, "[m]y 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. Also, please note footnote b in the infobox. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but the English of the third paragraph of this section is so impenetrable I can't understand it well enough to be confident I've fixed it. Could someone more familiar with the subject take a look at it, and if it isn't factually correct, take a run at it? It is at least (sort of) grammatical now, but I may have muddled the intent of the writer. 172.103.138.179 ( talk) 06:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)an occasional minor editor, almost exclusively of grammar and spelling errors.
This edit, which changed the {{{Religion}}}
parameter in the infobox, caught my eye. I note that Article III §1(7) of the
1935 Philippine constitution says, "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights." Ascribing subscription of the entire country to a particular religion seems to me like a bit of an oversimplification. I don't find any guidance about the use of this parameter in the template docs, but I do note that a {{{religion_ref}}}
parameter is available. Perhaps a note should be added to the effect that the commonwealth populationo was majority Catholic, and a supporting source should be cited.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, @ Kanto7 let us resolve this edit dispute over adding the American Flag. Why are you adding the American flag? Your rationale on my talk page is that "it is prioritized whether you like it or not", that is not a good rationale.
And you said "most historians" that is a clear violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:SOURCING, where is the source then? Adding to that, you said that the Insular Government flag is a civilian ensign? You have many flaws in your argument because you have no source, and you are disregarding the fact that the Flag Act (Philippines) exists.
And before you question my reversions of your edits, here is the source from Malacañang's official government website [13]
Cheers, PyroFloe ( talk) 04:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Tagging also the editor that said to talk about the dispute on the talk page. @ Chipmunkdavis
Again the flag act clearly states that it only repeales the ban on the Phillipine flag. I admit I was wrong about the Commonwelath of the Phillipine and the Comnonwelath used only the Phillipine flag with the American flag only used on American bases and certain government buildings. My problem is with the fact you keep on reverting the Insular Government edits I have made. The American flag took precedence over the Phillipine flag during the Insular Government. Puerto Rico is a COMMONWEALTH, not an Insular Administration like that which was in the Phillipine Islands. Kanto7 ( talk) 05:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It took 11 years until the Philippine Legislature, finally in the hands of elected Filipino representatives and senators, repealed the Flag Law, through the efforts of Governor-General Francis Burton Harrison, and reinstated the Philippine flag as the official standard of the nation. (Malacañang)
PyroFloe ( talk) 05:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
See talk page for Insular Government of the Phillipine Islands Kanto7 ( talk) 23:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 24, 2009, November 15, 2009, November 15, 2010, November 15, 2011, November 15, 2015, and November 15, 2020. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Huge wall of text. This page needs a cleanup. TheCoffee 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 later 2, it was legally in effect then. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 11:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
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]
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
The Cambridge University source has many volumes. Here's volume 79 and 42, the source is an unknown voloume.
The page has been moved from its previous article name, without the move being discussed. Why? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:48, 20 July 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)
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)
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. ...
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 ...
Congress establishes the self-governing Commonwealth of the Philippines.
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)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)
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)
There.-- ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ ( ᜂᜐᜉ) Baybayin 06:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
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 Philippines →
Philippine Commonwealth — —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Par0tT (
talk •
contribs)
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.
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
Note: Requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet. You guys know who. Elockid ( Talk) 18:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
{{{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.{{{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)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}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted a good faith , 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.
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)
Here, I've reverted this recent edit. That reverted edit included an invisible comment saying, "Please see talk page discussion at "Re-re-re-removal of Second Republic in infobox" before changing this". OK, I've re-read that section above. As I said there, "[m]y 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. Also, please note footnote b in the infobox. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but the English of the third paragraph of this section is so impenetrable I can't understand it well enough to be confident I've fixed it. Could someone more familiar with the subject take a look at it, and if it isn't factually correct, take a run at it? It is at least (sort of) grammatical now, but I may have muddled the intent of the writer. 172.103.138.179 ( talk) 06:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)an occasional minor editor, almost exclusively of grammar and spelling errors.
This edit, which changed the {{{Religion}}}
parameter in the infobox, caught my eye. I note that Article III §1(7) of the
1935 Philippine constitution says, "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights." Ascribing subscription of the entire country to a particular religion seems to me like a bit of an oversimplification. I don't find any guidance about the use of this parameter in the template docs, but I do note that a {{{religion_ref}}}
parameter is available. Perhaps a note should be added to the effect that the commonwealth populationo was majority Catholic, and a supporting source should be cited.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, @ Kanto7 let us resolve this edit dispute over adding the American Flag. Why are you adding the American flag? Your rationale on my talk page is that "it is prioritized whether you like it or not", that is not a good rationale.
And you said "most historians" that is a clear violation of WP:WEASEL and WP:SOURCING, where is the source then? Adding to that, you said that the Insular Government flag is a civilian ensign? You have many flaws in your argument because you have no source, and you are disregarding the fact that the Flag Act (Philippines) exists.
And before you question my reversions of your edits, here is the source from Malacañang's official government website [13]
Cheers, PyroFloe ( talk) 04:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Tagging also the editor that said to talk about the dispute on the talk page. @ Chipmunkdavis
Again the flag act clearly states that it only repeales the ban on the Phillipine flag. I admit I was wrong about the Commonwelath of the Phillipine and the Comnonwelath used only the Phillipine flag with the American flag only used on American bases and certain government buildings. My problem is with the fact you keep on reverting the Insular Government edits I have made. The American flag took precedence over the Phillipine flag during the Insular Government. Puerto Rico is a COMMONWEALTH, not an Insular Administration like that which was in the Phillipine Islands. Kanto7 ( talk) 05:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
It took 11 years until the Philippine Legislature, finally in the hands of elected Filipino representatives and senators, repealed the Flag Law, through the efforts of Governor-General Francis Burton Harrison, and reinstated the Philippine flag as the official standard of the nation. (Malacañang)
PyroFloe ( talk) 05:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
See talk page for Insular Government of the Phillipine Islands Kanto7 ( talk) 23:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)