Talk:First Philippine Republic

message: Hi! I have some reference material on the First Philippine Republic and the cast of characters. I just have to type it up and post it. Maybe this weekend. Pictures will be a little harder to come by though. I do know that the picture of the Malolos Congress that's posted is NOT the only picture of the event. I think I can get hold of a picture of Aguinaldo as he was arriving at the churchyard. --Pula Bughaw 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! You may remove the only picture that is in existence description if you can get a hold of more pictures. And maybe you can help on the other to-do's. -- Emir214 07:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures of the Malolos Congress

message: Howard, I don't think we need to specify Gen. Trias was a general in his cabinet listing. As in the case of Aguinaldo, the rank of general is subordinate to that of his civilian position. For example, Baldomero Aguinaldo was also a general and in later cabinets, Basilio Valdes was a general and in the Quezon and Osmena war cabinets, but the generaliship is not relevant to the civilian office. Gareon 07:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that I merely removed the "Gen." out of the  and  which made Mariano Trias red-linked. --Howard the Duck 09:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superfluous Ranks

message: The infobox development is complete. Instead, you may help on the "History" section. - Emir214 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help on history

message: Can somebody add the dates on the capitals. It will be assumed that all 4 were capitals at the same time. There had to be more historical capitals, like little towns when Aguinaldo's government was retreating. Also update those found at List of historical national capitals. --Howard the Duck 09:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While attending a quiz bee at UP, there was question on national capitals, and it had several unnotable towns (I remembered it was on Pangasinan). As long as Aguinaldo that the <place> was the capital city of the First Republic, that'll be enough proof. --Howard the Duck 13:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That sure is a lot of capitals. --Howard the Duck 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for fixing the above! I hadn't learned about the use of the colon yet. It is plenty of capitals, indeed. And also, makes your list of Commonwealth capitals long, too. Gareon 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitals

message: Should there be a criticism section, if historical critism can be found from reliable source references? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism section 

message: There is a discussion related to this article in progress at Talk:Philippine–American War#First Philippine Republic: Insurgent?. Some editors of this article might want to contribute to that discussion. If the discussion grows much, it would probably make sense to continue it here rather than there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion related to this article 

message: I've made some edits final paragraph of the lead section.
The second sentence of the final paragraph was a run-on sentence reading as follows:
Independence was declared on June 12, 1898 and the dictatorial government then in place was replaced by a revolutionary government headed by Emilio Aguinaldo as president on June 12, 1898 with its preliminary statement proclaiming Luzon and Visayas as the Philippine Republic declaring its independence, and that Maguindanao-Mindanao and Sulu are independent sovereignty States and are allies.
There are several problems here, e.g., (1) the dictatorial government didn't come into existence until 18 June, (2) the revolutionary government didn't come into existence until 23 June, (3) the Philippine Declaration of Independence didn't proclaim a republic, (4) the republic didn't come into existence until January 22, 1899, when the Malolos Constitution was promulgated. I've rewritten that sentence and the one following into several separate sentences and cited supporting sources. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to the lead 

message: In this edit, I removed some longstanding text about the Philippine Declaration of Independence from the article from the Philippine-American War section because that declaration was made prior to the establishment of the First Philippine Republic, by or on behalf of a dictatorial government which had been proclaimed but not yet established at the time, before the Philippine-American War began; it declared independence from Spain, not the US. Assertions in the removed text re Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, and Sulu, if supportable, might be appropriate for other articles but their relevance here was unclear as presented. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some longstanding confusion 

message: I've removed the infobox indication that the Republic of Biak-na-Bato was a predecessor state, as it was not an immediate predecessor. This follows on these three edits I have recently made to that other article clarifying the duration of its existence and clarifying that the First Philippine Republic was not an immediate successor. For the same reason, I've also removed infobox indication that Tagalog Republic#Sakay's Republic was a successor state. Note "Do not list entities that were formed/dissolved outside the life-span of the discussed state." in the docs of . Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of Biak-na-Bato and Sakay's Republic 

message: This unexplained and unsupported edit caught my eye. I think that I've reverted a similar edit previously. This time, I'm providing a talk page explanation for my reverting edit.
Article 73 of the 1899 Malolos Constitution says: 
The English translation says:
Based on this, I've reverted the change to "Minister of National Defense" back to the previous "Minister of War".
Please discuss any contemplated improvements re the cabinet department / governmental secretariat names rather than unilaterally changing the names in the article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: No objections with the format, although I think it would be better to separate the Term from the Name. Also, the table syntax is quite deprecated and doesn't use new lines for table cells. It would be better using CSS. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I've been going slow on this hoping for some discussion, since the changes will eventually impact several articles. I guess re deprecated and re CSS that you refer to the inline styling and the bolding. I had removed that in a suggestion above but had been holding off on putting those changes into the article. I've just done that. It's now an untweaked wikitable. (see also WT:Tambayan Philippines#Table styles). Re Name and Term, AFAICS, the two go together in any table row. I put them together to make it clear that The cite applies to both. Leaving them separate and adding a Ref in both cells would mean more clutter. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabinet 

message: In this edit, I've made some more WP:BOLD changes in the table giving the cabinet makeup, and I've cited two supporting sources. The two cited sources conflict somewhat, and I have noted that. I have also removed wikilinks which attempted to coerce the titles of cabinet departments of the First Republic into some sort of correspondence with titles of cabinet departments in the (present) Fifth Republic, replacing them where I could with more general wikilinks.
Also, recognizing that info in this table contradicts info in Malolos Congress#Council of Government (Cabinet) Members, I've added  tags to both articles, specifying this talk page subsection as the discussion venue. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: No objections with the format, although I think it would be better to separate the Term from the Name. Also, the table syntax is quite deprecated and doesn't use new lines for table cells. It would be better using CSS. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I've been going slow on this hoping for some discussion, since the changes will eventually impact several articles. I guess re deprecated and re CSS that you refer to the inline styling and the bolding. I had removed that in a suggestion above but had been holding off on putting those changes into the article. I've just done that. It's now an untweaked wikitable. (see also WT:Tambayan Philippines#Table styles). Re Name and Term, AFAICS, the two go together in any table row. I put them together to make it clear that The cite applies to both. Leaving them separate and adding a Ref in both cells would mean more clutter. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold changes (2016-08-08)

message: The discussion in the section above is still ongoing. Separately from that, I would like to ask if anyone has info or can point me to sources with info on post-Paterno cabinets in Aguinaldo's presidency.
The table which is the subject of the discussion in the section above asserts that the Paterno cabinet was in place until November 13, 1899 (when Aguinaldo began his retreat towards northern Luzon), citing this source in support. However, the second paragraph of this WP article section and the fourth paragraph here say essentially that the Paterno cabinet was only in place for a few days, contradicting this article and citing  in support. That Golay source is not readable online, but I have a hardcopy. On page 50 it says that Paterno's cabinet was installed on 8 May, 1899 and, without giving exact dates, says that General Luna arrested Paterno and most of his cabinet and returned Mabini and his cabinet to power in what would have been mid to late May, 1899. Golay cites this source in support, but the page number is unclear and I have not found further detail in there (it seems like it ought to have been on p.181 there).
So, info and/or pointers to sources of info on cabinet transitions after the installation of the Paterno cabinet on May 7-8, 1899 would be appreciated. It seems as if there ought to be something, considering that this article asserts that the First Republic operated as a government until Aguinaldo's capture on March 25, 1901. 
Actually, my own WP:OR guess is that the First Republic never functioned much at all as a formal constitutional republic but, rather, functioned as provided for in Article 99 of its constitution. This must have been the case after November 13, 1899 (see e.g., this) and (my guess) was probably the case for some time before that date. I can't support that, though. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Paterno cabinet(s)? 

message: I believe infoboxes should be brief, pointing to other places for more information, and not comprehensive. Towards that end, I edited the infoxbox to say, "Spanish and Philippine languages".  User:Darwgon0801 reverted by edit, putting back a long, but not comprehensive, list of Philippine languages ("Spanish, Tagalog, Kapampangan, Ilocano, Bicolano, Pangasinan, Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Chavacano, Waray, and other Philippine languages") saying, "These local languages are commonly used in their areas along w/ Spanish".   I do not dispute that these local languages are common.  That is not the question, at least for me.  The questions are (1) Should infoboxes be comprehensive or summary?  and (2) How do we choose which language to list of the dozens of Philippine languages, especially given the discussion over how extensive an area the First Philippine Republic governed?   I think that the infoboxes should be a summary list (Spanish and Philippine languages) and one reason for that is to avoid the necessity of deciding which Philippine languages to include and which to exclude.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not list all languages in infoxbox 

message: The infobox asserted that the Philippine Republic (or, I infer, part thereof), is today "part of" the Philippines and Palau, citing this in support. The cited source says, in part, "... Palau would continue to be claimed by the First Republic." From what I understand, the cited source is either mistaken or this point is underclarified there. I think that Today part of in the infobox (which comes from the  parameter) is confusing without clarification, and I have removed it in this edit. This is treated in more detail (albiet, it seems to me, mistakenly) in the Provincial and local government section, where the assertion is made based on the cited source mentioned previously that "... Palau would continue to be claimed by the First Republic."
Googling, I found  That source covers the situation of cross-claimed areas involving the Philippines in a bit more detail than the source cited in the article. It appears to me that the content in the Provincial and local government section of the article related to areas with other claimants  needs to be rewritten, based on info in that source. I don't have time to do that right now; perhaps I will get back to this. If the infobox is to use the  parameter to assert that some areas claimed by of the First Philippine Republic are "Today part of" countries other than the Philippines (and such areas do exist -- see Island of Palmas case), this probably needs clarification in explanatiory footnotes. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palau, etc. 

message: This edit, which inserted  caught my eye. I question the accuracy of this WP:Short description.
The article's lead sentence says, "The Philippine Republic (; ), more commonly known as the First Philippine Republic or the Malolos Republic, was a nascent revolutionary government in the Philippines." This seems at odds with the short description given above. It would be accurate to say that the First Philippine Republic was a "Self-proclaimed short-lived independent republic", I think. It would be inaccurate to beg the inference that it was a sovereign independent government which was generally recognized by the community of nations. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: This edit caught my eye. I've made a further edit simplifying the image caption to say just "Territory claimed by the Philippine Republic", eliminating "in Asia and Oceania". However, as far as I know, the extent of the territory claimed by the Philippine Republic is not documented in a verifiable supporting source.  The territorial extent is not specified in the Malolos Constitution. The earlier Declaration of Independence by the Dictatorial Government could be read as claiming sovereignty over whatever territory Spain held in the Philippines at the time, and that claim arguably passed on to the Revolutionary Government and on to the Philippine Republic, but is the extent of that territory clearly specified anywhere? Can anyone provide a reliable supporting source? If not, and considering WP:V, it seems to me that the image should be removed or re-captioned.
As far as I can see, the extent of the territory wasn't documented/defined until it was passed from Spain to the U.S. by Article III of the 1898 Treaty of Paris, and that definition was further clarified by the 1900 Treaty of Washington. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Territory claimed by the Philippine Republic" unsupported? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is a discussion in progress regarding this at List of cabinets of the Philippines#Emilio Aguinaldo cabinet. Please discuss this there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  National cabinet table 

message: This edit caught my eye and caused me to look harder at this than I had in the past. From what I can see, the date is fixed differently by different sources. Tis article ,ight pick one of the source-supported dates but, in hopes of avoiding or minimizing editorial disagreement and in observance of WP:DUE, should probably include a clarifying footnote about that. I did a little quick toogling, and turned up the following:
*
*
*
Other sources also no doubt interpret events to indicate differing ending dates; possibly dates other than those indicated by the sources I've exampled above. Per DUE, some of these sources and the viewpoints they contain will have sufficient weight for acknowledgement in this article. I suggest addressing this situation here by giving an ending date of "1901" and, wherever that appears, linking a clarifying footnote saying something like, "Sources interpret events in varying ways, assigning the ending date of the republic to particular events occurring on different dates in 1901.", and citing sources including those listed above and, possibly, others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs) 12:03, August 12, 2021 (UTC)
Some other sources:
*  I'm sure that other citeable sources exist. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending date 

message: This edit caught my eye, It revises the characterization of this polity from "a nascent revolutionary government " to "an unrecognized independent sovereign state" with an edit summary saying: Revised opening lines, this government cannot be considered a revolutionary government for it has a functioning constitution albeit lacking the recognition of any major state during this time. Nevertheless it would be incorrect to water down the status of such a government to simply being revolutionary. unrecognized state would be a better term. According to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognized by other sovereign states.
I remember the characterization here having been a matter of some contention in the past. I observe that this falls within the lead sentence of the opening paragraph of the lead section of the article.
* MOS:LEADSENTENCE says, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. [...]";
* MOS:OPEN says, "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. [...]";
* MOS:LEAD says, "[...] The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. [...]".
Considering this, it seems to me that any contention regarding the political status of the First Philippine Republic should not occur anywhere in the lead section other than to summarize information contained in the body of the article, perhaps in a section headed Political status, and that mention of this, if present in the lead, should probably not occur within the lead sentence. I don't expect this suggestion to survive discussion, but how about something like the following for a lead paragraph:
Discussion? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping not to get drawn into a long discussion here about this but (1) I'm no expert but, speaking to the mention of Declarative theory of statehood in the edit summary, my understanding is that that came about c. 1933 and we're talking here about 1899;   (2) In your comment above, you seem to be arguing that the article ought to conform to your POV re the importance of the "dilutes the efforts of the Filipino people to achieve their independence". I recognize that POV (which needs support if explicitly introduced into the article) as important background context, but I feel that the article should be more NPOV and should have a more topical focus. Let's limit this discussion to the article's lead section, though. Barring further comment or continuing discussion, I will probably make an edit early next week along the lines I suggested abovo. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization, contention, and the article lead 

message: I've reverted this edit, which would have wikilinked Academia Militar which, according to this, was deactivated on January 20, 1899, to the article on the Philippine Military Academy, which was established in 1935. The Academia Militar came and went long before the PMA was established. I disagree with the description of the name Academia Militar as a "former name" in the PMA article, but I realize that, looking back, the PMA regards the Aguinaldo/Luna Academia Militar as a forerunner (incorrectly, in my view, but I wasn't brought up with a nationalistic view to Aguinaldo's revolution). However, I believe that it is too much of a stretch to look forward from 1898 and foresee the founding of the PMA in 1935, or even the founding of the Officer's School of the Philippine Constabulary in 1905, from the viewpoint of the First Philippine Republic in 1898. Discussion? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academia Militar and PMA 

message: I have reverted this edit. which would have, without support, added a distinction between municipalities and cities. See Article 57 here. Actually, that doesn't mention municipalities either -- perhaps further edits are needed. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provincial and Local Government