View source for Talk:Commonwealth of the Philippines

{{Philippine English}}
{{On this day|date1=2009-03-24|oldid1=279293783|date2=2009-11-15|oldid2=326007578|date3=2010-11-15|oldid3=396913998|date4=2011-11-15|oldid4=460672544|date5=2015-11-15|oldid5=690429313|date6=2020-11-15|oldid6=988808816}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Former countries}}
{{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines|importance=Top|history=yes|history-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Military history
|class=B
|B-Class-1=yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|US=yes
|Southeast-Asian=yes
}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|AsianAmericans=Yes|AsianAmericans-importance=high|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=low}}
}}

==Wall==
Huge wall of text. This page needs a cleanup. [[User:TheCoffee|TheCoffee]] 09:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

==Citzens of the US?==

Were Filipinos during the commenwealth era citizen of the US like Puerto Ricans are now? 
[[User:4.142.126.88|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.--[[User:207.114.206.48|207.114.206.48]] 02:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

==coat of arms==
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. [[User:Kintetsubuffalo|Chris]] 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

:This is what I am talking about [[Image:Philippinescoinvolcano.jpg]]

:Or would the arms more properly be this? [[Image:PhilippinesCommonwealthcoa.jpg]] [[User:Kintetsubuffalo|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. [[User:Gareon|Gareon]] 07:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Can you find a better one for the box in the article itself?  [[User:Kintetsubuffalo|Chris]] 10:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is actually a version of the Coat of Arms on the [http://www.bsp.gov.ph/bspnotes/evolution/BSPNotes/NewDesignSeries.pdf 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.[http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/p/ph_pre39.gif]--[[User:207.114.206.48|207.114.206.48]] 02:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

==Singular vs. Plural==

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."  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/219.78.222.177|219.78.222.177]] ([[User talk:219.78.222.177|talk]]) 14:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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]]."  <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.146.43.188|72.146.43.188]] ([[User talk:72.146.43.188|talk]]) 02:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><br>"The Netherlands is a member of [[NATO]], as is the United States."[[Special:Contributions/72.146.43.188|72.146.43.188]] ([[User talk:72.146.43.188|talk]]) 02:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)<br>"The Philippines was a member of the former alliance [[SEATO]], as was the United States."[[Special:Contributions/72.146.43.188|72.146.43.188]] ([[User talk: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 {{Harv|Zaide|1994|p=319}}. The election was the first to take place under the [http://www.thecorpusjuris.com/laws/constitutions/8-philippineconstitutions/66-1935-constitution.html 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)&mdash;e.g., "The Philippines comprises ...", "The Philippines, is a republican state", "The Philippines renounces ...", etc.
::'''Reference'''
::*{{Citation
|last=Zaide
|first=Sonia M.
|title=The Philippines: A Unique Nation
|publisher=All-Nations Publishing Co.
|year=1994
|isbn=971-642-071-4}}
::-- [[User:Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill]] ([[User talk:Wtmitchell|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".
[[User:Monomoit|Monomoit]] ([[User talk:Monomoit|talk]]) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

==[[sovereign state]]==
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:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
<blockquote>capacity to enter into relations with other states</blockquote>
Is this an attempt of revisionist history?  Even the date of independence and entry into commonwealth status has been changed in recent edits.
--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 10:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

==effective date==
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:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>[http://www.chanrobles.com/tydingsmcduffieact.htm 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 later[http://www.house.gov/ehlers/newsletter/Monday-November-13-20062038.html 2], it was legally in effect then. --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 11:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

::Section 4 of the Tydings McDuffie Act says:
{{quotation|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.[http://www.chanrobles.com/tydingsmcduffieact.htm]
}}
::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:
{{quotation|
May 14:  A plebiscite ratifying the independence agreement
<br /><br />
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
<br /><br />
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 {{tl|dubious}} tag(s). [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 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?--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 08:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Websites that state otherwise: [http://countrystudies.us/philippines/20.htm 1]
:::One could also argue that the Commonwealth was established when its constitution was signed.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,754854,00.html TIME Magazine]--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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 [http://countrystudies.us/philippines/20.htm 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." [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 23:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::I stand corrected.  Thank you.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

==Clarification==
The [[Cambridge University]] source has many volumes. Here's volume [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=O7ssB1mG_BsC&lpg=PR1&dq=International%20law%20reports&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1989&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=1989&as_brr=0&pg=PA36 79] and [http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=wCQx3cIb1KQC&dq=International+law+reports++By+Elihu+Lauterpacht,+C.+J.+Greenwood,+London+School+of+Economics+and+Political+Science.+Dept.+of+International+Studies&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=OQ0AQjYlGw&sig=UfZvpPppKJB3w8lhHAWkoJY3rgs&hl=tl&ei=xGxXSumjB5WG6wPvnsCVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 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? [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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

:The same user moved it again today, also without discussion. Annoying. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:3RR|3R rule]]. --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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?--''[[User:JL 09|<span style="color:#0070FF;cursor:move;">JL 09</span>]]''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:JL 09|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q?</sub>]]''</sup><sub>''[[Special:Contributions/JL_09|<sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c</sub>]]''</sub> 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). [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith|talk]]) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

==Philippine Commonwealth==
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. --[[User:23prootie|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ᜊᜓᜅ </span><span style="color:#808000;">ᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#008000;">ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#800080;">ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ</span>]]  ([[User talk:23prootie|ᜂᜐᜉ]])<sup>[[Baybayin#External links|Baybayin]]</sup> 04:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

:That does not make it either official or common. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:23prootie|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ᜊᜓᜅ </span><span style="color:#808000;">ᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#008000;">ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#800080;">ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ</span>]]  ([[User talk:23prootie|ᜂᜐᜉ]])<sup>[[Baybayin#External links|Baybayin]]</sup> 12:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
:Do we have to call somebody to resolve this dispute? User began to drop defamatory language.--''[[User:JL 09|<span style="color:#0070FF;cursor:move;">JL 09</span>]]''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:JL 09|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q?</sub>]]''</sup><sub>''[[Special:Contributions/JL_09|<sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c</sub>]]''</sub> 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Maybe I'll be nicer if you stop reporting me and start discussing at talk pages...--[[User:23prootie|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ᜊᜓᜅ </span><span style="color:#808000;">ᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#008000;">ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#800080;">ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ</span>]]  ([[User talk:23prootie|ᜂᜐᜉ]])<sup>[[Baybayin#External links|Baybayin]]</sup> 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. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk: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, Quezon City|Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City]], [[Metro Manila]].--[[User:23prootie|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ᜊᜓᜅ </span><span style="color:#808000;">ᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#008000;">ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#800080;">ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ</span>]]  ([[User talk:23prootie|ᜂᜐᜉ]])<sup>[[Baybayin#External links|Baybayin]]</sup> 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 [[commonwealth]]s 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--''[[User:JL 09|<span style="color:#0070FF;cursor:move;">JL 09</span>]]''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:JL 09|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q?</sub>]]''</sup><sub>''[[Special:Contributions/JL_09|<sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c</sub>]]''</sub> 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.--''[[User:JL 09|<span style="color:#0070FF;cursor:move;">JL 09</span>]]''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:JL 09|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q?</sub>]]''</sup><sub>''[[Special:Contributions/JL_09|<sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c</sub>]]''</sub> 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

::[[User:23prootie|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''':
::{{cite web |author= |title=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. |url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00714F93C581B728DDDAC0994D9415B858FF1D3 |work= |publisher=New York Times |date=15 November 1935 |accessdate=30 September 2009 |quote= 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. ...  }}
::{{cite web |author= |title=Roosevelt Order on Army |url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00D15F63E5F1A7A93C5AB178CD85F458485F9 |work= |publisher=New York Times |date=27 July 1941 |accessdate=30 September 2009 |quote=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 ...  }}
::{{cite web |author=THREATS AND RESPONSES: ASIAN ARENA; U.S. COMBAT FORCE OF 1,700 IS HEADED TO THE PHILIPPINES |title=THREATS AND RESPONSES: ASIAN ARENA; U.S. COMBAT FORCE OF 1,700 IS HEADED TO THE PHILIPPINES |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/world/threats-responses-asian-arena-us-combat-force-1700-headed-philippines.html |work= |publisher=New York Times |date=21 February 2003 |accessdate=30 September 2009 |quote=Congress establishes the self-governing Commonwealth of the Philippines.  }}
::Yet here is a source, that uses both phrases:
::{{cite book |title=The American empire: a study of the outlying territories of the United States Essay Index Reprint Series |last=Herman Hass |first=William |authorlink= |coauthors=William Oscar Blanchard |year=1940 |publisher=Ayer Publishing |location= |isbn=9780836923193 |oclc= |page=306 |pages=408 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=n9Wglj9vstcC&lpg=PA306&ots=57ondJeq-C&dq=commonwealth%20of%20the%20philippines&pg=PA306#v=onepage&q=commonwealth%20of%20the%20philippines&f=false |accessdate=01 October 2009}} 
::Given that both are citable from reliable sourced references, and thus both terms are verifiable, it appears that there needs to be [[WP:CON|consensus]] to support any page move. --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:23prootie|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ᜊᜓᜅ </span><span style="color:#808000;">ᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#008000;">ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#800080;">ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ</span>]]  ([[User talk:23prootie|ᜂᜐᜉ]])<sup>[[Baybayin#External links|Baybayin]]</sup> 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.--''[[User:JL 09|<span style="color:#0070FF;cursor:move;">JL 09</span>]]''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:JL 09|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q?</sub>]]''</sup><sub>''[[Special:Contributions/JL_09|<sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c</sub>]]''</sub> 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.--''[[User:JL 09|<span style="color:#0070FF;cursor:move;">JL 09</span>]]''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:JL 09|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q?</sub>]]''</sup><sub>''[[Special:Contributions/JL_09|<sub style="color:#177245;cursor:help;">c</sub>]]''</sub> 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. --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

:In [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&curid=160735&diff=387885232&oldid=387884113 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. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

==Naming convetions==
I really don't know what the hell you people are talking about so I'm going to restart the conversation right here.--[[User:23prootie|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ᜊᜓᜅ </span><span style="color:#808000;">ᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#008000;">ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#800080;">ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ</span>]]  ([[User talk:23prootie|ᜂᜐᜉ]])<sup>[[Baybayin#External links|Baybayin]]</sup> 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.--[[User:23prootie|<span style="color:#0000FF;">ᜊᜓᜅ </span><span style="color:#808000;">ᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#008000;">ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ </span><span style="color:#800080;">ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ</span>]]  ([[User talk:23prootie|ᜂᜐᜉ]])<sup>[[Baybayin#External links|Baybayin]]</sup> 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. --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 18:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

==Move request==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> 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 '''[[User:GB fan|<span style='color: #ffac2c;background-color: #00422f;'>~~&nbsp;GB</span>]][[User talk:GB fan|<span style='color: #ffac2c;background-color: #00422f;'>&nbsp;fan&nbsp;~~</span>]]''' 07:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

----


[[Commonwealth of the Philippines]] → {{no redirect|1=Philippine Commonwealth}} — <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Par0tT|Par0tT]] ([[User talk:Par0tT|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Par0tT|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

The shorter name used here might be a better title due to its considerable use during the era of the Commonwealth: 
*{{Citation
|last=Weir
|first=Fraser
|title=A Centennial History of Philippine Independence, 1898-1998
|url=http://www.ualberta.ca/~vmitchel/
|chapter-url=http://www.ualberta.ca/~vmitchel/fw5.html
|chapter=American Colony and Philippine Commonwealth 1901 - 1941
|ref=Weir-part5
|accessdate=2007-12-28}}
*[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60D1EFF3D58107A93C4A8178AD95F418385F9 The Philippine Commonwealth]. November 16, 1935, Saturday. The [[New York Times]]. Retrieved on [[October 1]], 2009.
*[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=slIyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6eQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2902,3031627&dq=philippine+commonwealth&hl=en Philippine Commonwealth Day]. November 14, 1935. Thursday. The [[Berkeley Daily Gazette]].

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. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' - There is no specific guideline barring against the use of an accepted shorter form over the official name of a country in naming an article. The shorter names "[[British Raj]]" and "[[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]]" are used as titles of their respective articles over the longer but official "Indian Empire" and "Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania". The [[Philippines]]' article itself uses an acceptable shorter name over the official "republic of the Philippines".  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Par0tT|Par0tT]] ([[User talk:Par0tT|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Par0tT|contribs]]) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
***As pointed out in the above discussions, the shorter name was/is not more common than the official name, and perhaps even somewhat less common. So, again, it's "''neither'' the official title, not the most commonly used form". - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 01:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
****Actually, newspapers of that era such as the [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QjoyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=h-QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4540,2444732&dq=philippine+commonwealth&hl=en Berkeley Daily Gazette], the [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KU0sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=w8oEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7019,1191300&dq=philippine+commonwealth&hl=en Herald-Journal], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=77wUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MZcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6970,4889402&dq=philippine+commonwealth&hl=en The Age], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lhgOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gn0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3601,1256331&hl=en The Evening Independent], The [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YlQaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6CMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1516,6259817&hl=en The Milwaukee Journal], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=56AKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bE0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6602,6742885&hl=en St. Petersburg Times], [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KCEbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8UsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6081,2174662&hl=en The Pittsburg Press], and the [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=NBEqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=l2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3060,2263745&dq=philippine+commonwealth&hl=en Lewiston Daily Sun] preferred using the shorter name rather than the longer one (1935-1944).
*Why?  The proposed title is hardly shorter than the official name.  — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="color:#fef; background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</span>]]</span> 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: <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Par0tT|Par0tT]] ([[User talk:Par0tT|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Par0tT|contribs]]) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::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:
{{quotation|
May 14:  A plebiscite ratifying the independence agreement
<br /><br />
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
<br /><br />
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.  — <span style="border:1px solid blue;padding:1px;">[[User talk:AjaxSmack|<span style="color:#fef; background:navy;">''' AjaxSmack '''</span>]]</span> 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.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Par0tT|Par0tT]] ([[User talk:Par0tT|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Par0tT|contribs]]) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*'''On a side note''': The official name of the [[Tydings-McDuffie Act]] is the '''Philippine Independence Act''' or '''[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/611449/Tydings-McDuffie-Act  Philippine Commonwealth And Independence Act]''' via [[Encyclopedia Britannica]]. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Par0tT|Par0tT]] ([[User talk:Par0tT|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Par0tT|contribs]]) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*'''Oppose'''. See Google searches <s>[http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU372AU389&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Philippine+Commonwealth%22#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=active&rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU372AU389&q=commonwealth+of+the+philippines+-Wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=commonwealth+of+the+philippines+-Wikipedia&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6f32b8af52b7e0b8] [http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU372AU389&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Philippine+Commonwealth%22#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=active&rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU372AU389&q=%22Philippine+Commonwealth%22+-Wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=g2g-o1&aql=&oq=%22Philippine+Commonwealth%22+-Wikipedia&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=6f32b8af52b7e0b8]</s> 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. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 03:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' - Without the capitalisations and quotation marks [http://www.google.com/search?s?hl=en&expIds=25856,25907,26515&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=philippine%20commonwealth%20-%20Wikipedia&cp=12&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=active&rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU372AU389&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=philippine+commonwealth+-+Wikipedia+&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&ech=5&psi=9eeSTP-HJYzuvQPAvPCZDQ12846961414286&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=_eiSTNqZEciJOIjgjIgJ 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 [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bIwjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=45gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6329,2108921&dq=philippine+commonwealth&hl=en The Montreal Gazette]. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Par0tT|Par0tT]] ([[User talk:Par0tT|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Par0tT|contribs]]) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
***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 [http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=active&rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU372AU389&noj=1&source=hp&q=philippine+commonwealth+-Wikipedia&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=] 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. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=%22Commonwealth+of+the+Philippine%22+-+wikipedia&btnG=Google+Search 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." <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Par0tT|Par0tT]] ([[User talk:Par0tT|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Par0tT|contribs]]) 01:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*****Only because you've now left the "s" off "Philippines". See [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU372AU389&as_q=&as_epq=Commonwealth+of+the+Philippines] , I get 2,320,000 results (0.33 seconds) and compare to [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1SKPC_enAU372AU389&as_q=&as_epq=Philippine+Commonwealth&as_oq=&as_eq=Wikipedia&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=active] . 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. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:23prootie|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.--''[[User:JL 09|<span style="text-shadow:silver 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;color:#0070FF;cursor:move;">JL 09</span>]]''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:JL 09|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">q?<sub>c</sub></sub>]]''</sup> 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. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 09:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

'''Note:''' Requester has been blocked as a sockpuppet. You guys know who. [[User:Elockid|<b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"><big>E</big>lockid</b>]]   <sup>([[User talk:Elockid|<span style="color:#99BADD;">Talk</span>]])</sup> 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. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 22:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]].  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

==Blocked ''Par0tT'' sock and my recent reversions==
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. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 01:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

==Alternative names in lede==
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. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 16:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

::Putting the alternate names in a seperate section would be a good solution, per the guidelines. - [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 16:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

==Removal of Second Republic in infobox==
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? --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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: [[History of the Philippines (1898-1946)#Insular Government (1901–1935)|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[http://www.chanrobles.com/1935constitutionofthephilippines.htm]
:*[[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[http://www.chanrobles.com/1943constitutionofthephilippines.html] 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.
:*[[History of the Philippines (1965-1986)|Marcos regime]] (1965–1986), during which a new constitution was taken up in 1973[http://www.chanrobles.com/1973constitutionofthephilippines.htm], and encompassing what is sometimes called the Forth republic of the Philippines (1981–1986)
:*The Freedom Constitution[http://www.chanrobles.com/aquinoproclamationo3.htm] period following the 1986 [[People Power Revolution]].
:*The [[History of the Philippines (1986–present)|Fifth Republic of the Philippines]], under the 1987 constitution[http://www.chanrobles.com/philsupremelaw1.htm].
:[[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 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. [[User:Kauffner|Kauffner]] ([[User talk:Kauffner|talk]]) 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

== Currency(s) Redirect ==

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?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.116.9.204|69.116.9.204]] ([[User talk:69.116.9.204|talk]]) 06:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Anthem ==

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).
* As of [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=562079526&oldid=561438249 this version], the article asserted that [[Lupang Hinirang]] was the anthem.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=next&oldid=562079526 This edit] changed that to [[The Star Spangled Banner]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=next&oldid=562396246 This edit] reverted that.
* In [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=next&oldid=562424290 this edit], I added some detail and cited supporting sources.

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 {{usc|36|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, [http://www.nationalanthems.info/ph.htm this source] makes some assertions about subsequent changes to the anthem designated, and [http://www.angelfire.com/me4/francute/consti2.htm 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. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 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 [[WP:SPS|user created pages]] may fall into the [[WP:SPS|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 [[List of U.S. state songs|"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]])--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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 (1898)|Treaty of Paris]], nor to the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

:::Re the ''Philippine Hymn'' as an anthem, I've recently made [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lupang_Hinirang&diff=prev&oldid=564011556 this edit]edit to the [[Lupang Hinirang]] article removing that assertion there, and a [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lupang_Hinirang&diff=prev&oldid=564012168#Official_status_of_The_Philippine_Hymn 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=564046749&oldid=563778374 this edit] to this article. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 01:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

== "Commonwealth" vs. "Republic" ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&curid=160735&diff=667272868&oldid=666958158 This edit], among other things, changed several instances of the term ''Republic'' to say "Commonwealth" instead. One instance changed was in the <code>title=</code> field of a cite which reads, after the edit, as: {{cite web |accessdate = 10 February 2007 | url= http://www.chanrobles.com/1935constitutionofthephilippines.htm |title=1935 Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines |date= May 14, 1935 |publisher=Chan Robles Law Library}} 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: {{cite web |url=http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1935-constitution/|title=The 1935 Constitution|work=Official Gazette|publisher=Government of the Philippines|date=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:

{{quotation|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. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 03:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

== Re-re-re-removal of Second Republic in infobox ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=710142675 Here], I have restored the infobox situation re the status of the [[Second Philippine Republic]] to its condition  as of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&oldid=407023564 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
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=467623219 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)
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=483777818 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)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=487512389 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)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=prev&oldid=562761341 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. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 05:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Insular Government was the predecessor of the Commonwealth, so why indicate that it succeded until the liberation? [[User:Darwgon0801|Darwgon0801]] ([[User talk: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 {{param|p1}} and not {{param|s1}} in the infobox. Looking back I see that confusion apparently began with [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=next&oldid=772184411 this edit] and was repeated [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&type=revision&diff=773368265&oldid=773114784 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 {{tl|infobox former country}}, the infobox now used, has a notice on it that it is being merged with {{tl|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 {{param|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 [[WP:BOLD|bold]]ly 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. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 02:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Commonwealth of the Philippines]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=751977606 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|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 {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 20:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

== Official languages ==

I have reverted a good faith [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&diff=next&oldid=774717375 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:
*{{cite book|author=Roger M. Thompson|title=Filipino English and Taglish: Language Switching from Multiple Perspectives|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W1h9oF9rj-MC&pg=PA27|date=1 January 2003|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing|isbn=90-272-4891-5|pages=27–29}}
*{{cite book|author=Christian Mair|title=The Politics of English as a World Language: New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xyYkxBmiA7AC&pg=PA480|date=1 January 2003|publisher=Rodopi|isbn=90-420-0876-8|page=480}}
This source only list it as "national language":
*{{cite book|author=Stephen Bochner|title=Cultures in Contact: Studies in Cross-Cultural Interaction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J36cDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA119|date=1 July 2016|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=978-1-4831-3834-3|page=119}}


Upon further reading of the source presently used in the article
*{{cite book|author1=Antonio L. Rappa|author2=Lionel Wee Hock An|title=Language Policy and Modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KXQTIl2eox4C&pg=PA68|date=23 February 2006|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-1-4020-4510-3|page=68}} 
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.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk: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?
*{{cite book|author1=Eugene Benson|author2=L.W. Conolly|title=Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in English|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UmfMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT3252|date=30 November 2004|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-134-46847-8|page=3252}}
--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 04:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

{{od}}The infobox in [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&curid=160735&diff=775175971&oldid=775160593 the now-current revision] of this article lists English, Spanish, and Filipino as official languages.
*[https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=xyYkxBmiA7AC&pg=PA479#v=onepage&q&f=false 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 [http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/1935-constitution-ammended/ 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 [https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=KXQTIl2eox4C&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false 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 [http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/5-2/5-2_1.htm 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]]. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 06:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
::{{ping|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.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 19:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

== Second Philippine Republic re-revisited ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&type=revision&diff=810066315&oldid=809972593 Here], I've reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&curid=160735&diff=809972593&oldid=807753074 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. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 04:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Commonwealth of the Philippines]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814140510|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|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.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 02:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

== Section World War II, grammar ==

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. [[Special:Contributions/172.103.138.179|172.103.138.179]] ([[User talk:172.103.138.179|talk]]) 06:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)an occasional minor editor, almost exclusively of grammar and spelling errors.
:Yeah. I took a second whack at this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&type=revision&diff=854310851&oldid=854308423 here]. It still needs more eyes on it. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 11:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

== Religion parameter in the infobox ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_of_the_Philippines&curid=160735&diff=860203411&oldid=857813656 This edit], which changed the {{param|Religion}} parameter in the infobox, caught my eye. I note that Article III §1(7) of the [http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1935-constitution/ 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 {{param|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. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]]  [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 11:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

== American flag dispute ==

Ok, @{{u|Kanto7}} let us resolve this edit dispute over adding the American Flag. Why are you adding the American flag? Your rationale on [[User talk:PyroFloe#What is it with Filipino articles|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''' [http://malacanang.gov.ph/history-of-the-philippine-flag/] 

Cheers, [[User:PyroFloe|PyroFloe]] ([[User talk:PyroFloe|talk]]) 04:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Tagging also the editor that said to talk about the dispute on the talk page. @{{u|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.  [[User:Kanto7|Kanto7]] ([[User talk:Kanto7|talk]]) 05:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

: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, [[WP:RSPYT|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. 

{{quote|text=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)}}

[[User:PyroFloe|PyroFloe]] ([[User talk:PyroFloe|talk]]) 05:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

See talk page for [[Insular Government of the Phillipine Islands]] [[User:Kanto7|Kanto7]] ([[User talk:Kanto7|talk]]) 23:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)