Talk:Insular Government of the Philippine Islands

Copied and pasted from where?

This was copied and pasted from somewhere but I just can't figure out where and therefore I do not know whether it is under copyright, though some edits have been made that have added to the original. Regardless it needs to be wikified -- some copyediting needs to be done; sections need to be added; missing information needs to be included; etc. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, it is not copyrighted. It's from History of the Philippines. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Then it is, indeed, copyrighted. Content on our projects is liberally licensed, but is copyrighted and must be attributed when copied elsewhere. I'll repair this, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but if you see content copy-pasted from one article to another, please try to help make sure it is compliant with the license...otherwise, we violate the rights of our own contributors. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Both seem to come from another, third source. It just doesn't read like original Wiki work reads. Maybe some CIA history book or some other source. Or maybe I am just wrong. Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Start date: 1901 vs 1902

The implication of the term "Insular Government" is not that the Philippines are a group of islands, but rather that this was a government under the authority of the Bureau of Insular Affairs. So the Spooner Amendment, which authorized the creation of a civilian government, is the logical start date. This law came into effect on July 1, 1901. I found newspaper references to "Insular Government" from July 1901 here and here. Kauffner (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense. 1901 was when Taft was appointed. Indeed there were two Governors-General then -- Taft, the civilian who ruled the peaceful areas, and Chaffee, the Army general, who ruled the conflict areas. See Governor-General of the Philippines. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Article title

The name "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" was used only in the titles of U.S. Supreme Court cases, as near as I can tell. It gets ten post-2000 hits on GBooks, all of them related to the various cases this government was involved in. Otherwise, this subject is called "Insular Government" or "Philippine Insular Government." "Insular Government" Philippine OR Philippines yields 1,200 post-2000 hits. The Organic Act and the Jones Law, as well as the banknotes and postage that were issued, just say "Philippine Islands." So they are no help. The 1916 Administrative Code is almost 900 pages long and uses the term "Insular Government" quite a bit. Here is an example: "'Insular Government' refers to the central Government as distinguished from the different forms of local government." (p. 1) But the code never uses the term "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands". Kauffner (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kauffner, I spotted the same issue even before your timely remarks. I've made some edits to better reflect the facts. Do you think the article should be moved to Government of the Philippine Islands? Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Commenting from the sidelines, I don't think that would be a good idea. For one thing that title would be generally presumed to refer to the current government of the Philippine Islands. Perhaps Government of the Philippine Islands (1901) or (1901–1935). I note that a title change would leave several hundred articles which wikilink to the current title using a redirect. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest either Insular Government (Philippines) or Philippine Islands (1901-1935). Unlike the current title, "Insular Government" and "Philippine Islands" are both names in widespread use. At the time, the Insular Government was the central government in contrast to the various local governments. But it works for this purpose as well, i.e. to retrospectively distinguish the 1901-1935 period from other periods.
The Commonwealth constitution of 1935 tells us that the name of the country is now "the Philippines" and no longer "Philippine Islands." As a practical matter, both phrases have been in use all along, as you can see here.
After looking at the Organic Act, I notice that it is full of overcapitalization (prescribed by the Government of said Islands). Section 23 mentions "the Philippine Government." So I would not conclude that the word "government" is part of a proper noun simply because it is capitalized. Great scott (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No argument re your suggestions. Yes, re the Commonwealth constitution. I note that the 1973, 1986 and 1987 constitutions style it as "Republic of the Philippines", but none of that is directly relevant to this article about an earlier government. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I see that the 1935 constitution also does the capital G nonsense: "Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines" (§15-1). I brought up this constitution because it appears that the authors were slyly promoting "Philippines Islands" as an era name. The distinction between "Philippines Islands" and "the Philippines" strikes me as quite subtle. I suspect it would pass most of our readers by if we tried to follow it. This is an argument in favor of using "Insular Government" even though the name "Philippine Islands" is far more common. Great scott (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't redirect work?

For some reason the link in the infobox to United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands does not redirect properly to the correct section on the history article. I do not know why. Clicking on the link in the redirect page works but when it is done automatically it does not work. Is this something odd with the Safari web browser or Mac OS? Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of preceding states

After reading the notes of Template:Infobox former country#Preceding and succeeding entities I have removed all preceding states from the template except of the Military Government. The Tagalog Republic, especially Note 6 which says "If the predecessor and successor are the same, and this predecessor/successor continued to exist during this period, do not list either. " and uses the Confederate States of America as an example. As for the Republic of Zamboanga, I think that is reason for removal is less definitive but I think that the comment "It is not the intention here to list every single previous/following entity—that would make the infobox look very silly in many cases." is applicable as is the "For most cases, the main and/or official predecessor/successor (under international law) is sufficient, since that is what most readers would expect to see.", contained in Note 1. Further the Republic of Zamboanga was not the only such republic. There is the Federal Republic of the Visayas and the Republic of Negros among many others. These "states" appeared in the transition period between the Spanish and Americans, during the power vacuum when the Spanish had withdrawn and the Americans have not arrived. It is unclear if anyone outside of the immediate clique that formed them recognized their existence. To put them in the Template is to imply a degree of stability and recognition that did not exist, I think. Mentioning them in the history of the Phil-American War would be the appropriate place, I think.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

National symbols -- order of precedence

There seems to have been a slow-motion edit war going on in this article ,ainly involving PyroFloe and Kanto7, with some others participating from time to time, over the order of precedence for display of national flags in the infobox. This should be resolved by editorial consensus reached through discussion here instead of by edit-warring in dueling article versions. The most recent edit in this war ([1]) reverted from a version giving the U.S. flag precedence to a version giving the Philippine flag precedence, with an edit summary requesting sources supporting giving precedence to the U.S. flag.

I don't happen to have a specific citeable source relevant to this available, but I observe that

• this article generally covers the period of 1901 to 1935;
• the Philippine Organic Act (1902) was the basic law of the Philippines fron 1902 to 1907;
• that was superseded in 1907 by the Jones Law (Philippines), which remained in effect until 1935;
• during all of this period, the Philippines was a territory of the United States;
• it seems reasonable to me that the Philippines would have been generally expected to conform to the customs of the United States in regard to precedence in display of of the national symbol of the United States.

The United States Flag Code article contains information that the U.S. first enacted an official flag code on June 14, 1923. I have not seen a copy of that code and I don't know whether it specifically addresses precedence of display of the U.S. national symbols over local symbols of U.S. territories, and I see that the edit summary of this edit mentions a 1919 flag law. All of that nonwithstanding, it seems reasonable to me to presume that the U.S. government and the people of the U.S. would have expected that the national symbol of the U.S. would have precedence.

I would reverse the request for supporting sources and ask PyroFloe to provide sources supporting the affording of a symbol of what was the Philippine territory of the U.S. at the time higher precedence than the national symbol of the U.S. or, failing that, reasonable argument supporting that position.

Please discuss and come to an editorial consensus regarding this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: I still rest my case that the Philippine flag was the main flag for the majority of the Insular Government's existence. Malacañang's official government website list the main flag that was used as the Philippine flag from 1919-1936 (17 years), and the American flag was solely used from 1907-1919 (12 years), the majority of the Territory's existence used the Philippine flag as the main flag. [2] Even if so, if the American flag tooks precedence over a United States territory should it also be added to the Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands articles as well? His cited sources are YouTube according to him, and he claims that the Philippine flag during that time was only an "ensign" despite him not citing reliable sources. here

In addition to that, basing from Kanto7's recent contributions and his talk page, he has engaged in multiple edit wars before that involves adding flags and infoboxes that were irrelevant at that time to historical and geopolitical articles. My full user report is at the administrator's noticeboard here. I hope to resolve this issue of him adding unconstructive edits but he's not listening and just says "Sorry" here despite them continuing to edit war with other editors as well that are telling him to cite sources. PyroFloe (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@PyroFloe I have only reverted a few edits that were not consistent with pages. An example of this is the british raj page. Nearly all pages with the british Raj as the preceding state show the red ensign. So why shouldn't the red ensign be in the Infobox. Anyway get me a piece of legislation from the time that made that flag to be flown above the US flag. The flag act only repealed the ban on DISPLAYING the flag Kanto7 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@PyroFloe. Give me some specific legislation stating that the Phillipine flag takes precedence over the American flag. Kanto7 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It also States that when flown horizontally the United States flag will be raised to the RIGHT of the Phillipine flag, not to the LEFT Kanto7 (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Another thing is that those areas are CURRENT us territory and all have links to the American flag. The Phillipine is a former territory and has no links to the American flag. So maybe you should put the flag of the United States over that of the Phillipine flag and link it Kanto7 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean even your Malacanang source States that from 1919 to 1946 the Phillipine and American flag were flown together Kanto7 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@PyroFloe. Act 2928 specifically States this The flag commonly known as the Philippine flag is hereby adopted as the official flag of the Government of the Philippine Islands and shall be used publicly, in the place next to that belonging to the flag of the United States, to represent the Government of the Philippine Islands both on sea and on land. It also States that "When flown vertically the flag of the United States shall be placed above". Kanto7 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You forgot this line: "Whenever the Philippine flag is hoisted in public jointly with the American flag, both shall be hoisted and lowered at the same time". You even quoted that the Philippine flag is to "represent the Government of the Philippine Islands both on sea and on land", does it say that the American flag is the one to be used to represent the Government of the Philippine Islands? "The Philippine flag shall be accorded the same honors and respect which the existing laws and regulations prescribe or may hereafter prescribe for the American flag" so how does this imply that the American flag is prioritized when representing the Insular Philippines? The Act is aptly named "No. 2928.—An Act to adopt an official flag (SINGULAR) for the Government of the Philippine Islands, prescribe rules for its use, and provide penalties for the violation of said rules." The infobox is not a flagpole, that does not imply the prioritization of the American flag against the Philippine flag.[3] PyroFloe (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying remove the Phillipine flag entirely. America was the Sovergin power so the American flag should take precedence for THIS ARTICLE ONLY. Kanto7 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you even trying to say? Kanto7 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What part of America was the administering power hence the American flag should naturally take precedence over the Phillipine flag. The act States that the American flag is to be flown to the RIGHT of the Phillipine ensign. The Infobox is like a flagpole, the flag that takes precedence over another flag should 've in the infobox Kanto7 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And where does it say that it is an "ensign"? PyroFloe (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

? Kanto7 (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I take back my statement that the Phillipine flag was an ensign. The American flag took precedence over the Phillipine flag. However I'm not disagreeing the fact the Phillipine flag was used as the official flag of the Insular Government. All I am saying considering America was the Sovergin of the Insular islands then the American flag should take precedence Kanto7 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The American flag takes precedence because it is the flag of the sovereign power, however that does not make it the flag of the Government of the Philippine Islands. The United States is sovereign over Texas today, with its flag taking precedence over the state flag, but it is not included in the Texas infobox. Territory of Hawaii doesn't include it. Puerto Rico doesn't include it. New York City doesn't include it. Also, please indent your posts properly. CMD (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

What part of those are CURRENT STATES do you not understand Kanto7 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Territory of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New York City are not current states. I have indented your post. Could you please point to the previous mention of "CURRENT STATES" as I cannot find it on this page or the article history. CMD (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

By that logic then pages such as the Northwest Territory and District of Alaska should not have American flags Kanto7 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

They don't have their own flags, but sure, if you want to implement that I have no objections. I have indented your message again. You can find out more information about how to do this at Help:Using talk pages § Indentation. CMD (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. Again by that logic the Phillipines had no flag from 1901 to 1920 Kanto7 (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct, much like Northern Ireland doesn't have one now. CMD (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I mean so do you want to remove the American flag Kanto7 (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have indented your post. Please note persistent refusal to follow talk page guidelines is considered disruptive. As for the flags, I would agree to a removal but the Philippine flag should include a note for the years it applied. CMD (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  There I indented my post.         ......Your logic still doesn't ..   make any sense Kanto7 (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Kanto7, Please listen to me and Chipmunkdavis's arguments, just saying that "your logic doesn't make sense" does not improve consensus. I agree also to remove the flag and add a the dates the Philippine flag was used, for the reason that no other US territory and state (that have their own designated flags) include the American flag in their infobox. Also, why are you reverting edits again and reinstating the flag? This discussion is still going on and you're still not listening to an ongoing community consensus. PyroFloe (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  @PyroFloe Now you are just changing your agrument. But ok if you insist Kanto7 (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Consensus isnt just 2 people. Lets just leave this issue like this untill more people come with new agruments to the table Kanto7 (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

How am I changing my arguments if I still insist that the Philippine flag is the one used by the Insular Government? Also, consensus is not based on the number and amount of people, since Wikipedia is not a democracy. PyroFloe (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Hold up. I just noticed that 
  all these examples referred 
   to are all ORGANIZED INCORPORATED territories and a Commonwealth. Obviously the Us Flag won't be there  Kanto7 (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Northern Mariana Islands are not unorganized incorporated territories. Guam, US Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are NOT Commonwealths and THEY do not include a US Flag on their infobox. In the same way that Washington DC DOES NOT include an American flag even despite it being directly administered by the Federal government. PyroFloe (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 However those are CURRENT territories. Nearly all former territories (except Hawaii) have the American flag Kanto7 (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 When those areas will become independent then the American flag will be added to the Imfobpx  Kanto7 (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You know what. Fine. I'm sick and tired of arguing with you two. I'm going to be reverting my edits. I wish you both a good fay Kanto7 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finally resolving this issue. Best regards, PyroFloe (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually the Phillipine was an Insular Area. In insular areas the only flag allowed is the flag of the United States. Like Puerto Rico when it was an Insular territory  Kanto7 (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 And I mean there should be some mention of the fact the US flag was the Sole flag from 1901 to 1920 Kanto7 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Kanto7, just please stop, you are still going around geopolitical articles and adding unconstructive unsourced edits. If you do not WP:LISTEN and WP:DROPTHESTICK, Wtmitchell might want to arbitrate this discussion. PyroFloe (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Alright. Let's see what he thinks Kanto7 (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  I have referred this issue to Wtmitchell. If he rules the American flag shouldn't be added, Then so be it. I will stop protesting my case here Kanto7 (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

See User talk:Wtmitchell#PyroFloe and ChipmunkDavis. As I said there, arbitration by me is not going to happen. Since this discussion began here, it has come to my attention that the Philippine flag became official in 1920. The article currently shows the Philippine flag with a date range saying "(1920–1935)", citing Act No. 2928, March 26, 1920 in support. That supporting source says that the Philippine flag, "shall be used publicly, in the place next to that belonging to the flag of the United States, to represent the Government of the Philippine Islands both on sea and on land". That is not the same thing as saying that the Philippine flag replaced the U.S. flag as the official flag.

My opinion is that this article on the Insular Government established in the Philippines by the United States in 1901 should show the U.S. flag as its official flag, like the article on U.S. Military Government which preceded it, and should show that above the Philippine flag currently shown with a date range beginning in 1920. My unsupported belief is that that the Philippine flag became co-official with the U.S. flag in 1920. I believe that the U.S. flag should be shown with a date range of "(1901–1935)", though I am currently unable to cite a source supporting my understanding that the U.S. flag did not loose its official status when the Philippine flag was adopted as official to be used for purposes of display. If a reliable source with the information that the U.S. flag lost its official status in regard to the Philippines in 1920 turns up, this ought to be revised. If there is dispute here regarding that, perhaps a footnote should be added to the article explaining that this particular detail is unclear. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

(added) Following on two recent edits to the article, I just took another look at Act No. 2928. I quoted from Section I of that act above. That quote says in part that the Philippine flag "shall be used publicly in the place next to that belonging to the flag of the United States," (emphasis mine).

I see that Section II has content I did not quote that appears relevant here. Quoting Section II in its entirety:

Whenever the Philippine flag is hoisted in public jointly with the American flag, both shall be hoisted and lowered at the same time. The American flag shall be placed above the Filipino flag when both are in a vertical line, and to the right of the latter and at the same height when hoisted in a horizontal line. The Philippine flag shall be accorded the same honors and respect which the existing laws and regulations prescribe or may hereafter prescribe for the American flag.

In view of this, I suggest that this most recent edit be reverted. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong name

Fwiw, this is obviously not actually the right name for the current WP:SCOPE of the article.

The "insular government" was never a territory. The Government of the Philippine Islands was the (kinda) territorial government that oversaw the Philippine Islands (cf. the Organic Act of 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act). One is the administration and the other is the territory itself. The current article is like parking our treatment of the United States at Government of the United States or all of our treatment of the United Kingdom under the Monarchs of the United Kingdom page. It's ridiculous for them and it's ridiculous for our coverage of this era of Philippine history as well.

Further, calling the Government of the Philippine Islands the "insular government" is presumably a modern historians' kludge (not that any of the historians are provided as a source for this) to differentiate it from the modern version. Looks like it was never any kind of official name. We're free to use it as a helpful WP:NATURALDAB but we shouldn't be treating it as if it were any kind of actual official name for the period like we're currently doing.

United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands has exactly the same problems in addition to being needlessly long and overspecific. The two "government" pages need to cover their actual WP:SCOPE—the governments of the Philippines during those eras—and the actual country under those governments needs to be somewhere else. American Philippines works. Philippines under American rule works. Others are presumably also fine. The current status quo ain't, though. — LlywelynII 01:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following exactly, both articles cover the governments and the history of the governments. United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands goes into far too much detail on the history, but there isn't any information about the country there. (It's a bad article, but that's due to a lack of info.) This article's history section is much better, covering the organic acts, the Jones law, and the Tydings–McDuffie Act, and other smaller developments in government, and then having a section on the Governor-general which is very in scope and then on Resident commissioners which seems a reasonable short inclusion. Like the military government article, it doesn't stray into much other information about the country. CMD (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Insular Government succeeded First Philippine Republic

I have noticed that my attempt to place the First Philippine Republic as a predecessor to the Insular Government was undone. This seems to imply that whoever undid my edit believes that the First Philippine Republic was illegitimate? The present-day Philippine government considers the First Republic to be a legitimate government. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this, per WP:BRD and per my requests in the edit summaries of those edits. It depends on viewpoint, I guess, and I'm struggling to find a way to prevent it with a WP:NPOV. Your viewpoint, apparently, is that governmental authority passed from Spain to the First Philippine Republic (FPR) on its inception, and passed from the FPR to the US Insular Govt (USIG) on its inception and, I guess, that the United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands (USMG) was illegitimate. My thinking is that Spain has been operating a legitimate territorial government for 300+ years and, after the SpanAm war Battle of Manila (1898) (1898BOM) on August 13, 1898, surrendered the country militarily to the U.S. Between the time of that surrender and the inception of the USIG, the US operated a military government {MG) in the Philippines. That MG article lists "Military occupation of acquired foreign territory and the administration thereof" as a type of military government. However, that article also lists "Military democracy, a war based society that practices democracy. With an elected and removable general as supreme chief, a council of elders and a popular assembly" as a type of military government, and that description fits the FPR pretty well.

At the time of the 1898BOM, the Philippine Revolutionary Army controlled much of the country, with land forces from the US which had begun arriving in Manila only a few weeks previously dividing control of the Manila area with the Philippine forces. So, there is a question about how to present that situation of divided control between AUgust 13 1898 and July 4, 1902 in WP articles. However, this article concerns only the USIG, and this is not the place to answer that question. The FPR had arguably ceased to exist on April 19, 1901, when Aguinaldo swore allegiance to the U.S. By the time of the inception of the USIG, the FPR was no more. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

(added) I put the above together pretty hurriedly as I was getting ready to go to an appointment. I should not have done that, but I saw your comment following on our exchange of edits to the article, and didn't want to leave it without a timely response. Before leaving for my appointment I had second thoughts about the USIG predecessor not being the USMG but being the Taft Commission (following the passage of the Spooner Amendment, William Howard Taft was appointed Governor General of the Philippines On July 4, 1901 -- see [4]). He exercised civil authority from that date, and I changed the predecessor government in the USIG article to reflect that. I'm off to bed now, but I plan to take a second look at all of this tomorrow. Perhaps you will respond by then and/or perhaps I'll be able to summarize all of this less confusingly after a night's sleep. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would actually argue that the July 4, 1901 passage of the Spooner Amendment should be considered as marking the establishment of the Insular Government as it saw the dismissal of MacArthur as military governor and the appointment of Taft as civilian governor. Thus the Taft commission should be considered part of the Insular Government. This would also mean that the USIG and FPR overlapped for exactly one year if the article for the Philippine-American War is an indicator for the dissolution of the latter government. Therefore I support listing both the FPR and USMG as predecessor regimes to the USIG. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I had been taking the 1902 date from the organic act that is used in this article as a given for that, but I can buy that argument. I note that Wikidata dates the establishment in 1901 ([5]). Looking for a citeable RS, I see that thisthis (cited in the Taft Commission article but not here) seems to support that and that other article uses 1901 as the establishment date for the Insular Government. It looks to me like that should be changed and a supportinng RS cited. (if sources disagree, there's WP:DUE, of course)Wtmitchell  !!!! (fix/update}

The most recent RfC I know on the predecessor/successor topic was one on Nazi Germany, which shifted the purpose of the boxes to require direct state succession rather than geographical succession. The American administration did not take over from the First Philippine Republic, it was established separately as a competing power. CMD (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I would nitpick "as a competing power" there. It was established separately (period). AFAIK, the US govt never acknowledged the FPR as a legitimate government; it didn't respond officially to the FPR declaration of war and did not treat with it. To put this in perspective for myself, I roughed out this summary timeline. I don't see a need to insert/discuss it here, but feel free to comment there. Wtmitchell Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC) {fix)

Date of establishment

This article currently asserts that U.S. insular government was established in the Philippines on July 4, 1902 ([6]), with the passage of the Philippine Organic Act. There was brief discussion here in the section above arguing that the proper establishment date is July 1, 1901, as specified by the Spooner Amendment and codified in the Army Appropriations Act of 1901. That discussion noted that Wikidata puts the establishment date at 1901 (here).

It now appears to me that both of these dates are incorrect, and the correct date is August 14, 1898. According to "Definitions of Insular Area Political Organizations". Office of Insular Affairs | U.S. Department of the Interior. n.d. Retrieved August 26, 2024., an Insular Area is: "A jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district." That definition was met by the establishment on that date of the United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands. Further, I note that Cates, John M.; Dunham, Allen (n.d.). "The Pacification of the Philippines". Retrieved August 26, 2024. asserts, "[General Arthur] MacArthur relinquished control over the insular government to [Governor-General William Howard] Taft in July 1901".
(inserted) possibly relevant:

1. Bureau of Insular Affairs § Philippines (unsupported there)
2. Gelpíq, Gustavo A. "The Insular Cases: A Comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, and the Philippines" (PDF). In the early Insular Cases, the Court held that Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines were unincorporated territories when they were acquired in 1898.
3. Hoyt, Henry M. (1905). "THE FINAL PHASE OF THE INSULAR TARIFF CONTROVERSY". The Yale Law Journal. 14 (6): 333–342. doi:10.2307/782386.
4. USC Title 48, Ch. 5, Sec. 1001-1008, Philippine Insular Islands (since repealed, but may be of interest)
5. Records of the Bureau of Insular Affairs. (Sec. 350.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY}} listing the War Department Division of Customs and Insular Affairs (1898-1900) as a prdecessor agency).
6. "Records of the Office of Territories (1885-1976)". 126.1 Administrative History. (listing Division of Customs and Insular Affairs (1898-1900), Division of Insular Affairs (1900-2), snd Bureau of Insular Affairs (1902-39) as predecessor agencies in the War department).
7. "Philippine Commission". issuances-library.senate.gov.ph. n.d. Retrieved August 28, 2024. showing a number of issuances styled as "Act No." during 1901 with INSULAR GOVERNMENT in their titles.
8. "U.S. Insular Area". civil-taiwan.org. n.d. Dissection of a TYPE 1 US Insular Area. Retrieved August 29, 2024. Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines , and Cuba were all under United States Military Government upon the coming into force of the Spanish-American Peace Treaty on April 11, 1899. This is pretty explicit, but I don't think the source is a WP:RS.
9. "Definitions of Insular Area Political Organizations". Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. 12 June 2015. Archived from the original on 13 July 2018. Retrieved March 3, 2018. A United States insular area from April 11, 1899

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC) (inserts added subsequently)

This depends on what the topic of this article is. If the topic is the legal polity under American law prior to the territory becoming a "Commonwealth", the doi link dates it from April 11, 1899 (Treaty of Paris), to March 24, 1934 (Tydings-McDuffie). That polity had a series of different governments/governmental structures, and if article topic is one of those particular governments/structures, that has different implementations. Looking through the above sources, I would push the starting date back to the Treaty of Paris, and note explain in the article the various shifts in structure (military government, Taft commission, civil government, 1901 municipal elections, organic act, 1907 legislative elections, Jones Law, and ending with the combination of the Tydings-McDuffie Act and the Commonwealth constitution) as governmental changes within that broader topic. CMD (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic of the article is stated in its title aand lead sentence. The fact that this discussion is taking place indicates that there is a need to clarify that a bit. I think that is probably best done by the addition of an early body section headed Inception or somesuch. I don't say Establishment because, AFAICT, its inception was not occasioned by some act explicitly establishing it but as a consequence of an action that has a consequence of creation of (in the words of the Bureau of Insular Affairs) "A jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district." -- that action being the establishment of the US Military Government having jurisdiction over some part of the Philippine islands. This article might, for its own purposes, define the term 'insular government' to mean something else but, whatevewr the definition for purposes of this article might be, it ought to be made clear early-on in the article. The purpose I intended when I opened this talk page section was to try to figure out what that definition is, for purposes of this article, and get consensus about that. We seem to have the following alternatives on the table:

1. August 14, 1898 - inception date of US Military Government
2. December 10, 1898 -- Treaty of Paris signed
3. April 11, 1899 -- Treaty of Paris effective
4. July 4, 1901 - handover from the Military Government to the Philippine Commission (following after the Spooner Amendment and the passage of the 1901 Army Appropriations Act)
5. July 4, 1902 - Philippine Organic Act comes into effect

09:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

I finally found an explicit date for this stated in a citeable reliable source, which I have added as #9 in the first of the two numbered lists above. The U.S. Office of Insular Affairs says that the Philippines has been "[a] United States insular area from April 11, 1899". I will add this information to the article, though it looks like it will take some careful editing to integrate it smoothly. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)