Talk:Jones Law (Philippines)

message: I created this article at "Jones Act (Philippine Islands)" and it has now been moved to "Jones Act (Philippines)."  The need for the "Phillipines/Philippine Islands" tag, if anyone isn't aware, is to distinguish this 1916 law from the 1917 law (sponsored by the same Congressman Jones) for Puerto Rico (see Jones-Shafroth Act).
I will not revert it, because "Philippines" is clearly the modern name, but I thought there might be some desire to discuss it, because "Jones Act (Philippine Islands)" is the name of the law that was in use at the time.  During the era of U.S. control, the Phillipines were always referred to as the "Philippine Islands" (abbreviated P.I.), just as Hawaii was the "Hawaiian Islands."
I've also created a redirect from "Jones Law" which was another name for the statute.  Newyorkbrad 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... I didn't consider that the country was just always called "Philippine Islands" before. Was that not just the "official name" in the way that it's the "Republic of the Philippines" today? Either way, I don't mind how the article is named. Coffee 04:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Government definitely used the term "Philippine Islands" during this period.  I am sure that the Filipinos themselves said "Philippines" (or the Tagalog or Spanish equivalent of same).  Having "Islands" in the name of a territory and then dropping the word when independence or autonomy is attached is actually a common pattern, e.g. Maldives (formerly "Maldive Islands"), Tokelau (formerly "Tokelau Islands").  In any event, since there is a redirect at the original article title I don't think this matters overmuch.  Thanks for your input! Newyorkbrad 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of the Jones Law uses "Philippine Islands" 30 times and "Philippines" 26 times. So both names were certainly official. And, no, it's not true that the country was "always referred to" as PI. It was PI in bill's title and also on contemporary postage, so that version of the name could be considered slightly more official. I'd compare it to "United States" vs. "United States of America", with the longer version used on more formal occasions. When the Insular Government needed a shorter version of the name, for example on coins, they didn't hesitate to use "Philippines." Kauffner (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: ::Following on this strong belief, I'm going to revert your most recent change, bring the article generally back to its state after the initial reversion of your bold change. If you continue the edit war with another reversion, I will report the matter at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for administrator action. (you are also free to report the matter there). I am an administrator myself, but am constrained against taking action on this myself as I am involved in the matter.
::: I won't report it there, because it's not the right place, which you should know if you're an admin. Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If you do report it there, I will move to have you desysopped. You want to trade threats? I've been around this game as long as you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see here that you've continued the edit war. Consequently, I've requested administrator intervention here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  And gee whiz willikers, it's been declined, for the exact reasons I said. Now if you're done trying to bludgeon me with policy, perhaps we can discuss the issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: One last revert

message: i moved the reference to Phil-Am War to bottom of intro because it is background and not central to this article.  It should be mentioned for those few who find their way to this article and are unfamiliar with basic Philippine history but for most it is unnecessary.  I even considered creating a "historical background" section and moving the reference to there. However, I think that we should take one step at a time and we need more info for the background section. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved reference to Phil-Am War to bottom of intro 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jones Law (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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227012601/http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=T00000000007 to http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=T00000000007
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified