Talk:History of the Philippines (1898–1946)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Please add yourself to this list if appropriate. Wtmitchell (alias "boracay bill") |
Contents |
[edit] 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. Chris 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is _wildly_ inaccurate in virtually every sentence. It desperately needs complete revision! (A concerned historian who doesn't have time to create a Wikipedia logon identity to do it now.)
[edit] Territorial name?
What was the official name of the Philippines when it was a U.S. territory? The article on historic regions of the United States just lists it as a Commonwealth, but that came after its territorial status. Postdlf 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Philippine Islands. Documents of the time will refer to "Report of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands," etc. Gareon 02:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just "Philippine Islands," or "Philippine Islands Territory"? The reason I'm asking is that I want to create a category for those who were appointed as judges on its territorial courts, to go along with the other subcategories in Category:United States territorial judges (i.e., Category:Montana Territory judges). Simply naming it "Philippine Islands judges" would obviously be confusing. Postdlf 02:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- AFAICT, the name used was simply "Philippine islands" -- see this and this. -- Boracay Bill 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- So what should the category be named? Would "Philippine Islands territorial judges" be acceptably accurate and unambiguous? (note the lower case) Postdlf 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- AFAICT, the name used was simply "Philippine islands" -- see this and this. -- Boracay Bill 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article is a mess
This article popped up on my watchlist when two {{POV}} templates were deleted without explanation. I took a look at the sections from which these templates were deleted, and then at the whole article.
This article is a real mess, and looks like an example of content forking. It contains numerous maintenance tags which have gone unanswered for several months and overlaps several other, better articles covering similar subject matter, contradicting those other articles on various points (Philippine Revolution, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War First Philippine Republic, Philippine Commission / Schurman Commission / Taft Commission, Commonwealth of the Philippines, Second Philippine Republic, probably other articles as well. Some of those articles are better than others. IMO, all of them are better than this article.).
The existence of this article in its current state reflects badly on Wikipedia. Is anyone working on fixing the numerous problems in this article? It looks to me as if this would be better off recast as a summary style article giving a brief overview of material covered by articles such as those I've mentioned and providing {{Main}} links to them. Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Working on a substantial rewrite
I've started a substantial rewrite of sections of this article. I started at the top and am proceeding downward in chronological order, working from related WP articles and sources cited therein. The tone what I have written thus far differs markedly from the tone of other related articles, but I think I am being faithful to the sources from which I'm getting the information.
I expect that there may be disagreement about what I'm writing, and would like to invite and encourage interested editors to look at what I am doing and comment on it. What I have done so far is at User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. Please comment at User talk:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] First-cut rewrite of early sections integrated
I've integrated my first-cut rewrite of the early sections of this article by completely replacing the first two sections with my rewritten version covering the same time period. I am working solely from online sources, and I no doubt have not seen some of the sources on which the parts I've replaced were based. There is some major controversy here between the Aguinaldo source and the Worcester source. What other sources I've found tend to support Worcester, and he certainly supports his side of the points in controversy strongly -- he provides much discussion about this which I have not drawn into the article.
It made sense to me to reorganize the header-lovels of other sections, and I've done that. I've also converted the References section into separate Notes and References sections. I will probably take a break from this article for at least a few days unless something pops up on my watchlist which looks like it needs an answer. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Continuing work, moving on to Phil-Am war period
If anyone is interested, I'm continuing work on this article by moving on to the Philippine-American war period. To avoid confusing the main article with in-progress drafts, I'm doing this at User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. Please comment here and/or at User talk:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Done with major work
I'm done with ongoing major rewrite work. There is still some work and a lot of polishing needed. Some of the detail in this article probably needs to be moved into more detailed subject-focused articles which it references with {{main}} or with inline wikilinks. I've probably requoted too much material from the sources I've cited. I think I'm done with heavy rewriting heavy rewriting, though. I think and hope that I've improved the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality dispute
This article was tagged disputing its neutrality by User:Jeepday in this 08:51, October 5, 2007 revision. The article has gone through major changes since then, and I'm not sure what neutrality dispute issues might remain. If there are neutrality issues remaining, let's please discuss those issues here. If not, I'll remove the tagging disputing the neutrality of the article in a few days. Just for info, I expect to edit this article further as I have time to do so. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I just moved it and the unreferenced tag to the top of the page they were both already on the article. I have no position on the articles neutrality. I would say the article look highly referenced now which it was not last time i was here. Considering the body of rework that has been done here, and there is not active dispute, I would say you are free to remove the {{neutrality}}. If someone believes there is still an issue they are welcome to discuss it here and replace the {{neutrality}} if there is an active dispute. Jeepday (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos section
I just placed this proposal in Talk:Armed Forces of the Philippines#World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos:
It seems to me that this section about World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos would fit much better into this article than it fits into History of the Philippines (1898–1946). I propose moving it. Comments? Objections? Suggestions?
Please comment here -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
