Talk:Commonwealth of the Philippines

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Citzens of the US?

message: 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)
thread_title: [[sovereign state]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Clarification

message: The page has been moved from its previous article name, without the move being discussed.  Why? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The same user moved it again today, also without discussion. Annoying. - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Page Move

message: 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)
thread_title: Blocked ''Par0tT'' sock and my recent reversions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Currency(s) Redirect 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822045537/http://pinas.dlsu.edu.ph:80/history/history.html to http://pinas.dlsu.edu.ph/history/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Second Philippine Republic re-revisited 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160816060828/http://lrmds.deped.gov.ph/download/1133 to http://lrmds.deped.gov.ph/download/1133
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) 02:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah. I took a second whack at this here. It still needs more eyes on it. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section World War II, grammar 

message: This edit, which changed the  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  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)
thread_title:  Religion parameter in the infobox 

message: Ok, @ 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  
Cheers, PyroFloe (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so we have resolved the content dispute on the Commonwealth that the American flag should not be included, 1 down 1 to go. The Insular Government is next. Please provide a source on the "taking over precedence" part of your argument. On my talk page you "provided a source" by saying to go to YouTube. First of all, YouTube is not a reliable source, and second of all, a clip from a film/video does not justify it's use. Just look at the Malacañang source I gave, it clearly took precedence over the American flag right after 1919. Even so, we use the most used and most recent flag used by a country/dependency. The American flag did get used, but after 1919 it became only a second flag alongside with the Philippine flag as shown in my Malacañang source. 
PyroFloe (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  American flag dispute