Talk:Jones Law (Philippines)

Title

I created this article at "Jones Act (Philippine Islands)" and it has now been moved to "Jones Act (Philippines)." The need for the "Phillipines/Philippine Islands" tag, if anyone isn't aware, is to distinguish this 1916 law from the 1917 law (sponsored by the same Congressman Jones) for Puerto Rico (see Jones-Shafroth Act).

I will not revert it, because "Philippines" is clearly the modern name, but I thought there might be some desire to discuss it, because "Jones Act (Philippine Islands)" is the name of the law that was in use at the time. During the era of U.S. control, the Phillipines were always referred to as the "Philippine Islands" (abbreviated P.I.), just as Hawaii was the "Hawaiian Islands."

I've also created a redirect from "Jones Law" which was another name for the statute. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I didn't consider that the country was just always called "Philippine Islands" before. Was that not just the "official name" in the way that it's the "Republic of the Philippines" today? Either way, I don't mind how the article is named. Coffee 04:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Government definitely used the term "Philippine Islands" during this period. I am sure that the Filipinos themselves said "Philippines" (or the Tagalog or Spanish equivalent of same). Having "Islands" in the name of a territory and then dropping the word when independence or autonomy is attached is actually a common pattern, e.g. Maldives (formerly "Maldive Islands"), Tokelau (formerly "Tokelau Islands"). In any event, since there is a redirect at the original article title I don't think this matters overmuch. Thanks for your input! Newyorkbrad 13:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The text of the Jones Law uses "Philippine Islands" 30 times and "Philippines" 26 times.[1] So both names were certainly official. And, no, it's not true that the country was "always referred to" as PI. It was PI in bill's title and also on contemporary postage, so that version of the name could be considered slightly more official. I'd compare it to "United States" vs. "United States of America", with the longer version used on more formal occasions. When the Insular Government needed a shorter version of the name, for example on coins, they didn't hesitate to use "Philippines." Kauffner (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

POV phraseology

I've reverted this edit, which replaced "The Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States in 1898 and a civil administration called the Insular Government was created in 1901." with "The Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States in 1898, who fought the Philippine–American War against Filipino forces until 1902, with continuing battles until 1913. A civil administration called the Insular Government was created in 1901" in the second paragraph of the lead section, with an edit summary saying, "Let's not pretend that the US magnaminously offered the Filipinos independence; there was a war that the Spanish had no part in against locals to mantain US control over the Filipinos".

I think the article is more WP:NPOV without this change. Please discuss disagreement here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, the article is very POV. It adopts the viewpoints of the colonial powers and ignores the viewpoints of the inhabitants of the Philippines islands. The Philippines celebrate their independence day as 12 June 1898, so obviously they don't think that they were controlled by the Spanish when the Treaty of Paris was signed on 10 December 1898. The article says "In keeping with the idea that the ultimate goal for the Philippines was independence"; I think it's very deceptive to say that and not mention that the First Philippine Republic existed and had actually fought a war for the independence of the Philippines against the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said in his first annual message to the U.S. Congress on December 3, 1901, with the Philippine-American War still ongoing at the time, "In dealing with the Philippine people we must show both patience and strength, forbearance and steadfast resolution. Our aim is high. We do not desire to do for the islanders merely what has elsewhere been done for tropic peoples by even the best foreign governments. We hope to do for them what has never before been done for any people of the tropics--to make them fit for self-government after the fashion of the really free nations." (see [2]). The political development of the Philippines from that point is summarized in Wikipedia at History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#Insular Government (1901–1935) and elsewhere. That article also mentions (in passing) the First Philippine Republic, which was a short-lived insurgent revolutionary government in the Philippines which pursued the Philippine-American War against the United States between 1899 and 1902.

The topic of this Jones Law (Philippines) article is the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 -- which was approved some fifteen years after the conclusion of the Philippine-American War and the dissolution of the First Philippine Republic. The text of the Jones Law begins as follows (see [3]):

WHEREAS it was never the intention of the people of the United States in the incipiency of the war with Spain to make it a war of conquest or for territorial aggrandizement; and

WHEREAS it is, as it has always been, the purpose of the people of the United States to withdraw their sovereignty over the Philippine Islands and to recognize their independence as soon as a stable government can be established therein; and

WHEREAS for the speedy accomplishment of such purpose it is desirable to place in the hands of the people of the Philippines as large a control of their domestic affairs as can be given them without, in the meantime, impairing the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the people of the United States, in order that, by the use and exercise of popular franchise and governmental powers, they may be the better prepared to fully assume the responsibilities and enjoy all the privileges of complete independence: Therefore

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of this Act and the name "The Philippines" as used in this Act shall apply to and include the Philippine Islands ceded to the United States Government by the treaty of peace concluded between the United States and Spain on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, the boundaries of which are set forth in Article III of said treaty, together with those islands embraced in the treaty between Spain and the United States concluded at Washington on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred.

I think that it is pretty clear that the U.S. asserted in 1901 and continued to assert 15 years later in 1916 that it intended to guide the Philippines through a transition from their 300 year history as a Spanish colony to a new status as a self-governing nation. Enactment of the Jones Law was one of a number of milestones along the path by which that was accomplished.

Other points of view on this probably do exist. Regarding the appropriatness of expressing those points of view in this or other Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The POV of the people of the Philippines Islands is undue weight? When the people of the Philippines think they were independent, thank you very much, before the US came in and invaded, that it deserves note in a page about the US giving the Philippines their independence after the fact.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently in Romblon, Romblon and need to get ready to catch a boat for Manila, so my response to that will be delayed a day or two. I'll be busy while in Manila, but will find time to respond. In the meantime, I invite others to chime in here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've arrived in Manila. I expect to be checking WP at least once a day while I'm here.

WP:NPOV, Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, says that editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published reliable sources.

• How strongly a POV is held by an individual WP editor doesn't matter.
• How many people that editor feels share his POV (e.g., "the people of the Philippines Islands") doesn't matter.
• What matters is that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint (See WP:DUE, which was linked above from a more verbose wikilink).

Also, WP:V, Wikipedia's verifiability policy, requires that any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Above you cite Wikipedia and primary sources all from one side of the issue, and you lecture me on WP:RS and WP:V? I've removed your uncited material from the article and basically readded the material I added with a proper citation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand the thrust of your expressed POV correctly, it seems to extend far beyond the topic covered by this particular article. If you intend to work on adding fair, proportionate, unbiased, and appropriately supported representations of that POV to relevant articles, I would suggest starting with another article -- perhaps History of the Philippines (1898-1946), Philippine–American War, First Philippine Republic, or Timeline of Philippine sovereignty. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Another revert, and a warning re edit warring

Here, I've reverted another change to this article by User talk:Prosfilaes (I inadvertantly did that anonymously. I've logged in to add this talk page section). I'll also place a Uw-ew warning on the user's talk page.

Prosfilaes, please look at WP:BRD and WP:EW. Let's discuss this here.

Re this edit which I've reverted, your edit summary says, "remove uncited information; add more accurate and cited information". The uncited information you're referring to appears to be the assertions I've restored that

• The Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States in 1898; and
• a civil administration called the Insular Government was created in 1901

Since these assertions have been challenged, I'll tag them {{cn}} for now and will dig around and cite supporting sources for them. A cite of [4] ought to do for the first one. The second one is covered by info in Insular Government of the Philippines, but because that's on WP it doesn't meet WP:RS criteria. I may need to dig around a bit to research the "Insular Government" naming. and "called the Insular Government" might not turn out to be the correct phraseology here.

Prosfilaes, your cited source characterized as providing "more accurate" information is James W. Loewen (2000). Lies across America: what our historic sites get wrong. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-87067-0. That book is not previewable online and, as I am located in the Philippines, a paper copy is not easily available to me. I note, however that this November 7, 1999 New York times review of the book says, in part, "[T]he title is misleading, a rhetorical flourish perhaps dictated by the success of Loewen's earlier book Lies My Teacher Told Me, an American Book Award-winning study of high school history textbooks. In fact, Loewen deals less with actual lies on road markers and at historic sites than with attempts to make history more palatable to the public, by accepting local myths uncritically, simplifying complexities or leaving out the ugly parts. All this is deplorable, of course, but it isn't quite the shocking scandal his overblown prose would make it out to be." and "Loewen's own historical interpretation is not above reproach. In an item about the Intrepid Museum in Manhattan, he charges that the United States military deliberately dropped bombs on civilian targets in Vietnam, offering as proof the fact that American bombs hit hospitals. But the outcome, however horrible, doesn't prove the intent; it is Loewen's ideology that causes him to make this leap in logic." I'll need to dig into this some more, and it'll be some time before I can do that.

The snippet quoted from that cited source says, in part, "This was a war of conquest by an outside power, not an insurrection by a subordinate faction." I assert that this is the author's opinion, and not a statement of fact. For a differing opinion (one of many), you might see Bautista, Lowell B. (3 September 2009), "The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the Philippine Treaty Limits" (PDF), Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law, 1: 111–139, doi:10.1007/s12180-009-0003-5, ISSN (Print) 1864-9629 (Online) 1864-9610 (Print) 1864-9629 (Online) {{citation}}: Check |issn= value (help); External link in |author= (help) (you'll need to get to that via the DOI -- the linked URL seems to have a case of link rot).

That snippet also says, in part, "Filipinos date their independence from June 12, 1898, before the American army even got there, and celebrated their centennial in 1998." That's true enough as far as it goes—the Battle of Manila Bay (1898) took place on May 1, but it was conducted by the U.S. Navy's Asiatic Squadron, not by the American army. There's more background info regarding that in the History of the Philippines (1898-1946) article, in other relevant articles, and in sources cited in those articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see; you reverted me and you removed cited information from the article and readded uncited information, and yet threaten me with NPOV and edit warring. I've proved that it's not a marginal view and provided a snippet directly to the point. You provide a 38 page article on the borders of the Philippines, which if there is any relevant point in there, is well buried. I'm happy to acknowledge that the Treaty of Paris provided the US with its claim to the Philippines and that the US made statements of intent of independence, so long as the article also mentions that the US actively suppressed an local government claiming control over the Philippines.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page, you said, "Let's see; you reverted me and you removed cited information from the article and readded uncited information, and yet threaten me with NPOV and edit warring. I've proved that it's not a marginal view and provided a snippet directly to the point. You provide a 38 page article on the borders of the Philippines, which if there is any relevant point in there, is well buried. I'm happy to acknowledge that the Treaty of Paris provided the US with its claim to the Philippines and that the US made statements of intent of independence, so long as the article also mentions that the US actively suppressed an local government claiming control over the Philippines." Fragmenting the discussion would be counterproductive, so I said there that I would respond here.

First, re trading reversions. Above, I asked you to read WP:BRD. That is not an official policy or guideline, but it does lay out a generally accepted method of coming to consensus in matters such as this without confusing readers with an article made unstable by editor trading reverts. "BRD" is short for "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". That cycle goes like this.

1. One editor makes a bold change to an article.
2. Another editor disagrees with the change, reverts it, and opens a discussion on the article's talk page to discuss the matter.
3. Those two editors, discuss the matter on the article's talk pagewith others possibly joining in. In the meantime, the portion of the article being discussed remains generally stable in its state as it was after the bold change which is being discussed was reverted.
4. Once consensus is reached on how to handle the matter, the article is edited accordingly.

There is also the three-revert rule (3RR) which says that, with some exceptions, an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. By my count, neither of us is presently in peril of breaking that rule.

3RR, however, does not imply that it is OK for editors to trade reverts. I think that you and I are both flirting with sanctions for edit warring; you especially so since you continued to war after a warning. I also strongly believe that, in the spirit of BRD, the article should remain in its state.

One last revert

Following on this strong belief, I'm going to revert your most recent change, bring the article generally back to its state after the initial reversion of your bold change. If you continue the edit war with another reversion, I will report the matter at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for administrator action. (you are also free to report the matter there). I am an administrator myself, but am constrained against taking action on this myself as I am involved in the matter.

I won't report it there, because it's not the right place, which you should know if you're an admin. Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If you do report it there, I will move to have you desysopped. You want to trade threats? I've been around this game as long as you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I see here that you've continued the edit war. Consequently, I've requested administrator intervention here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And gee whiz willikers, it's been declined, for the exact reasons I said. Now if you're done trying to bludgeon me with policy, perhaps we can discuss the issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the discussion

Getting back to the discussion of the matter at issue, I goggled up an online copy of the article which I cited; see [5]. The cite therein says, "SOCIAL SCIENCE DILIMAN (January 2008-December 2009) 5:1-2, 107-127." the particular bit of that which I had in mind when I mentioned it is on page 109, and reads:

Statement of the Philippine Position. The Philippines traces its present title to that of the United States, as its successor-state to the territory ceded by Spain to the United States. The Philippines claims that it acquired its current territorial boundaries marked on the map by what is called the “Philippine Treaty Limits” on the basis of three treaties: first, the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States of 10 December 1898; second, the Treaty of Washington between the United States and Spain of 7 November 1900; and lastly, the Treaty concluded between the United States and Great Britain on 2 January 1930 (Bautista, 2008).

So, there is a legal analysis which asserts that in 2009 the position of the Philippine government was that they traced their territorial rights to Spain ceded the Philippine Archipelago to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris (1898). If we're talking about establishing which view is right and which view is wrong here, it seems to me that this argues strongly that my view is right.

Right and wrong don't enter into WP:DUE, however, as long as two supporting sources which disagree are both considered to be reliable for the topic. I think that there is a good argument to be made that the source which you have put forward is unreliable for the topic. Even leaving that aside, however, even if both sources are considered reliable they don't necessarily deserve to be given equal weight in the article; they deserve to be given weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" and "articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."

My view is that the POV view you are pushing based on the supporting source which you have put forward should not be mentioned in the article or, just possibly, should be mentioned as a WP:fringe view. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You say above, that you are happy to acknowledge that the Treaty of Paris provided the US with its claim to the Philippines and that the US made statements of intent of independence, so long as the article also mentions that the US actively suppressed an local government claiming control over the Philippines. I don't see how that relates very much to the topic of this particular article. What happened, very roughly, was as follows:

• The Katipunan, a Philippine revolutionary society, inaugurated an open insurgent government against colonial Spain in 1896.
• Two rival Katipunan leaders emerged, Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo, associated with rival factions of the group.
• In March 1897, the Tejeros Convention was held. Bonifacio was Supremo at that point and presided. The convention, however, elected Aguinaldo to the presidency. Bonifacio, as Supremo, annulled the proceedings, but was ignored. Aguinaldo assumed the presidency. Bonifacio attempted to start a rival group and ended up being executed for treason. After this, the Katipunan was disestablished.
• In November 1897, another insurgent government, the Republic of Biak-na-Bato was established with Aguinaldo as President.
• In December 1897, the Pact of Biak-na-Bato was signed, creating a truce between the Spanish Colonial Governor-General Fernando Primo de Rivera and Emilio Aguinaldo to end the Philippine Revolution. As agreed in the pact, Aguinaldo and senior associates went into voluntary exile abroad.
• In April 1898, the Spanish-American War began.
• On May 1, 1898, Admiral Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet in the Philippines in the Battle of Manila Bay. Dewey had only token land forces with him, however, which he used to establish basing in Cavite, south of Manila. Spanish forces remained in control of Manila, the Capital.
• On May 19, 1898, Dewey transported Aguinaldo back to Manila from exile in Hong Kong. Aguinaldo restarted his revolution against Spain.
• On June 12, 1898, Aguinaldo declared independence from Spain. Neither Spain, the U.S., nor any other country took official notice of this.
• In June, US land forces arrived.
• On August 13, 1898, US forces captured Manila in a mock battle which had been arranged with Spanish forces. Spain's Governor General surrendered the city to the US land commander, who established a U.S. military government in the interim pending execution of a treaty ending the war.
• On December 10, 1898, the Treaty of Paris (1898) was concluded, ending the Spanish-American war and with Spain ceding the Philippines to the U.S. (the treaty impacted other former Spanish territories as well).
• On January 23, 1899, Aguinaldo's insurgents established the Malolos Republic (the third of three insurgent governments they had established since declaring independence from Spain).
• On February 4, 1899, active hostilities erupted between U.S. and insurgent Philippine forces. This quickly escalated into widespread armed conflict.
• In April of 1899, during a cessation in the fighting, a resolution to the U.S./Filipino conflict was nearly reached. That fell apart, however, when General Antonio Luna arrested Aguinaldo's then Cabinet and returned a more hawkish cabinet to their former positions.
• Aguinaldo's insurgent government enacted a formal declaration of war on the U.S. in June of 1899.

All of that is described in more detail in lots of articles. None of those articles say that the U.S. surpressed a Filipino local government. The local government was Spanish, and that was replaced by a local US military government. The US military local government continued in place during the Philippine-American War, though insurgents controlled parts of the country at various times (much of the country at the start; little of the country at the end). As far as I can see (and I think this is widely supported by outside sources) Aguinaldo's various governments were insurgent revolutionary governments, first in revolution against Spain, and then in revolution against the US.

Changes should not be made to this article which put it into conflict with other related articles. Given this, what do you suggest? I'm headed off to bed; I'll try to look in here sometime tomorrow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's another day. I see that you've continued the edit war, so I've made the AIV report (see here). While that is in process, I'll continue here.

It occurs to me that I should continue the rough chronological narrative bulleted above just a bit further. Here's a few more items:

• In January 1899, President McKinley created the Schurman Commission, tasked to study the situation in the Philippines and make recommendations on how the U.S should proceed. Unfortunately, when the three civilian members of the commission arrived in the Philippines on March 4, they found armed conflict between US forces and Aguinaldo's insugent forces underway. As mentioned above, the commission attempted to broker a solution, but was unsuccessful in that (see here), and hostilities resumed.
• On March 16, 1900, President McKinley created the Taft Commission, which was was granted legislative as well as limited executive powers to govern those portions of the Philippines under U.S. Control—the U.S. Military Government exercised authority over the remainder of the country.
• Aguinaldo was captured on March 23, 1901, and swore an oath accepting the authority of the United States over the Philippines and pledging his allegiance to the American government on April 1, 1901. On April 19, he issued a Proclamation of Formal Surrender to the United States, telling his followers to lay down their weapons and give up the fight (see Philippine-American War#Decline and fall of the First Philippine Republic).
• On July 1, 1902, the Philippine Organic Act (1902) was approved as the first organic act for the Philippines. On July 2, the office of U.S. Military governor was terminated, and full authority for providing civil government to the entire country came under the Taft Commission.

This article concerns a replacement organic act for the Philippines which was enacted on August 29, 1916, by which time the Philippines had been under U.S. civil administration for about 15 years. It is my belief that the insertion of the POV material you keep editing into the article is out of place here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This article goes on and on about how the US intended to make the Philippines an independent nation. The Philippine-American War demonstrates that's a lie; or at least recontextualizes the nature of that claim. The US did not take over the Philippines from Spain and preceded to make it a free nation, like they did with Cuba. They fought a three year war to keep it under their control from local forces that had set up a government willing to take control. If we're going to provide quotes from Theodore Roosevelt, we should provide the other side of the matter, the war that Thomas Roosevelt was fighting at the time.

In any case, I dispute that one review that disagrees with the author's interpretation of history makes a book not a reliable source. Because someone disagrees with a POV, doesn't mean we can ignore it in the article and still be NPOV. I don't agree that a pragmatic use of historical treaties to define the Philippines borders means anything in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The US civil administration had been there for 15 years in 1916, but the article still quotes Theodore Roosevelt from 1902. You want to make a case that the US had always been intending to free the islands, then evidence for the other side should not be silenced.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The article describes the bill which is the topic of this article—how it came about, what it is, what it does. Please read the bill. You can find a copy of it here. I quoted the introduction earlier in this discussion (search here for the word whereas). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the view the New York Times book reviewer ("You don't need to think very long or very deeply about how history is recorded to come up with the central insight in Lies Across America: that history is too often what you want it to be. The best to hope for is a version of history bound by the prejudices and limitations of those who record it and those who apprehend what has been recorded. The worst results from deliberate distortion, which is what James W. Loewen's title suggests his book is about."), and its reliability as a source, the title of the book is "LIES ACROSS AMERICA: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong." this amounts to a self-declaration by the author that the view put forward by the book is, at best, a WP:FRINGE view which flies in the face of conventional understanding. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to say the scope of this article needs to focus on the Jones Law itself, a brief summary in a background section can exist, but the history of the Philippine-American War, previously known as the Philippine insurrection should remain there. This should relieve this article from potential edit warring about that event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that history is not completely objective is a light-weight version of postmodernism, which is one of the major ideas of the 20th century. It's far from WP:FRINGE. The claim that signs at historical sites frequently don't represent the best of modern historical scholarship is also hardly a WP:FRINGE idea.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Puts me in mind of [6] and [7]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The intentions of what the United States had with the Philippine Islands is not the concern about this article, and is only background to the primary subject of this article. At best the article should include a summary of the Philippine Insurrection/Philippine-American War and not get into the weeds of the cause of that, rather state as fact it occurred and state as fact its outcome (without assigning value to said outcome).

If it can be referenced that the author of the law through the Whereas portion of the legislation, thought that the act should be written because of X, Y, & Z then it's fine per WP:VER. If a book criticizes the subject of the article (The Jones Law), then attribute who wrote it and include it in an appropriate section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, as to what the current article says, what are you suggesting for changes?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved reference to Phil-Am War to bottom of intro

i moved the reference to Phil-Am War to bottom of intro because it is background and not central to this article. It should be mentioned for those few who find their way to this article and are unfamiliar with basic Philippine history but for most it is unnecessary. I even considered creating a "historical background" section and moving the reference to there. However, I think that we should take one step at a time and we need more info for the background section. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Topical importance re nature of and terminology describing the PhilAm War

After several months of relative stability, the issue of the terminology sometimes used elsewhere (but, it seems, not in this article) to describe the PhilAm War come up again. I believe that this is too much tangential detail for the topic of this article. This involves the insertion of a cite with a long quote, which reads:

James W. Lowen, Lies Across America: What Our History Sites Get Wrong, New York: Touchstone, 1999, ISBN 0-684-87067-3, page 138. 'Morever, there was no "Philippine Insurrection." This term suggests that the United States held legitimate power in the Philippines, against which some Filipinos rebelled. Nothing of the sort was true. This was a war of conquest by an outside power, not an insurrection by a subordinate faction. The Filipino independence movement controlled most of the nation including all of the main island of Luzon except Manila when the United States attacked. Filipinos date their independence from June 12, 1898, before the American army even got there, and celebrated their centennial in 1998. They are clear about the role of the United States as invader. American historians too now agree on the more accurate "Philippine-American War."

I looked back at the history a bit and see

• In this September 1, 2012, editor Prosfilaes insetred the cite and quote, saying (remove uncited information; add more accurate and cited information)
• I reverted that in this September 1, 2012 edit, saying (Reverted to revision 509878012 by Wtmitchell: One last revert. See "one last revert" on the talk page.. using TW)
• Prosfilaes reverted in this September 1 edit, saying (remove uncited information; add more accurate and cited information). The uncited information removed read, "The Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States in 1898 and a civil administration called the Insular Government was created in 1901. The Jones Law was a framework"; the replacement read, "The Philippines were conquered by the United States in the Philippine-American War between 1899 and 1902.", supported by the cite of the Lowen book, including the long quote.
• In thisSeptember 2 edit, Prosfilaes changed "The Philippines were conquered by the United States" to "The Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States in 1898, and the control of the United States over the Philippines was established ", saying (try to make it more neutral). The cite and the long quote remained in.
• This September 8 edit by Rcocean truncated the cite, giving no explanation. IMO, the truncation was too severe.
• This September 9 edit by Prosfilaes reverted that truncation.

I suggest that the long quote be eliminated from the cite. Going further, I suggest supporting source less POV than the Lowen book titled Lies Across America: What Our History Sites Get Wrong be found to support the article assertion that "In 1898, the Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States, which subsequently fought the Philippine–American War between 1899 and 1902 and established control over the Philippines." (if need be, I can supply one). In passing, I note that the long quote from the Lowen book points up the use of the term "Philippine Insurrection", and that the book was published in 2000; googling around, I found this source which says that in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its' references to use the term "Philippine-American War" instead of "Philippine Insurrection". I argue that this article is an inappropriate venue to showcase this difference over terminology seemingly unrelated to the topic of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the long quote is not appropriate for this article. We can add an internal link to other articles for those who are interested in exploring that issue in more depth. This article is about the Jones Act and that act's place in history and we should keep it focused on that. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Cites aren't a problematic place for extensive quotes IMO. However, I didn't revert the edit by Rcocean because it truncated the quote, I reverted the edit because it damaged the article by removing essential parts of the cite, like book name and page number.

This article is about the Jones Act, but it says "In keeping with the idea that the ultimate goal for the Philippines was independence, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt said as early as 1901,..." You could theoretically separate this article from the desires and drives behind Philippine independence, but so long as you claim that the ultimate goal for the Philippines was independence, I think it important to point out that the Philippines would have been happy to have just had the Americans leave the islands in 1898, that the US had just fought a war to stop them from being independent.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jones Law (Philippines). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227012601/http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=T00000000007 to http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=T00000000007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)