Jump to content

Talk:Malolos Congress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Declaration of War against the United States

[edit]

This article mentions the declaration of War against the United States. Does anyone know where a copy of that can be found, or know of a source which quotes the text? I haven't been able to locate it online, though I did find this. -- Boracay Bill 02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent reversion of changes by Rizalninoynapoleon

[edit]

I've reverted two recent edits by Rizalninoynapoleon as follows, for the reasons explained.

  • this edit to the Major Legislation section — my main reason for reverting this is the change to "Ratification of ...", while the supporting sourced don't ratify anything but are insteat the item spurported to have been ratified.
  • this edit changed Pedro Paterno's title from "President of Congress" to "President of Assembly of Representatives". As I understand it, the Assembly of representatives did not exist prior to the passage of the Malolos constitution by the Malolos Congress. Note here that Pedro Paterno signed the Malos Constitution using the title "President of Congress. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roster

[edit]

Does anyone have a list of all of the delegates? We could perhaps add those too in the legislative district articles. –HTD 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! Although for provinces that were simply renamed, i suggest adding them under their current provinces like Quezon for Tayabas. And Ambos Camarines can simply be added to both Norte and Sur. Manila is a tough one though cos there is no Legislative districts of Metro Manila which is what Manila province is today :)--RioHondo (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could have Legislative districts of Ambos Camarines. The renamed provinces would be under the names that they are called now. The Manila delegation would still go to Legislative districts of Manila. Just like U.S. districts which have been renumbered through the centuries we'd rely on names "Place-number" instead of adding names on the current legislative districts on where these people have represented. A local version would be the Legislative districts of Cebu which were originally numbered counter-clockwise from Cebu City, but is now numbered clockwise. The Legislative district of Mountain Province also does the same thing. –HTD 04:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Any chance of creating individual articles for each district the way you did Dasmariñas and Biñan? Like for Cavite: Cavite I, Cavite II, Cavite III, Cavite IV, Cavite V, Cavite VI and Cavite VII instead?--RioHondo (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the plan. Currently though I'm contended with the districts lumped into one article. These articles have been in existence for the longest time already, the next step is having separate articles per each district, if someone's up to it. –HTD 08:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article

[edit]

This edit to the article's lead sentence caught my eye. The edit changed the "formally known as" name for the body which is the topic of this article. This newspaper article, cited as a supporting source at the end of the article's lead sentence, does not appear to contain any information about the formal name of the body. The second sentence of the article's lead section says, "It drafted the Malolos Constitution." That is mentioned in the cited newspaper article;, and I have relocated the cite to the end of that second sentence. For a bit more information about the process by which the Malolos Constitution, the constitution of the First Philippine Republic was drafted, see e.g., Kalaw, Maximo M. (1927). "The development of Philippine politics" (Document). Oriental commercial. pp. view=image, q1=the+malolos+constitution 125-127. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)

Reading further in the article, I see that it conflates information about the body which drafted the Malolos Constitution and information about the legislative body of the government which was created by the promulgation of that constitution on 21 January 1899 (thereby rendering the body which had drafted that constitution defunct as of that date -- or so I would presume). The Declaration of War against the United States on June 2, 1899, then, would not have been a legislative action taken by the body which drafted the Malolos Constitution, then, but an action taken by the body created by the ratification of that constitution. e.g.,

Actually, the title "Malolos Congress" could arguably be said to describe either the body which drafted the Malolos Constitution or the legislature of the body created by the ratification of that constitution, or each of those two bodies separately.

All of that seems to need work.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For information specifically regarding the congress of Aguinaldo's revolutionary government at Malolos, which wrote the constitution establishing the First Philippine Republic (initially also seated at Malolos) and establishing the congress of that government, see Duka, Cecilio D. (2008). Struggle for Freedom' 2008 Ed. Rex Bookstore, Inc. pp. 167-174. ISBN 978-971-23-5045-0. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is objection, I intend to replace this article with a disambiguation page having two targets:

The wikilink in the first item above is a piped redirect wikilink which targets an article section. That section is also targeted by a similar pipoed redirect wikilink from the Revolutionary government in the Philippines article (which article currently appears to give an incorrect date for its disestablishment). As I have time, I am working on producing a summary style {{main article}} with a current working title of Revolutionary Government of the Philippines to cover Aguinaldo's revolutionary government, and I plan to change the #wikilinks to target that article when it is ready to go active.

Objections? Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved forward on this as follows:

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The 1899 Malolos Constitution in Spanish with a side-by-side English translation (archived from the original on 2012-10-02)

Bring back the Malolos Congress article

[edit]

Currently, if you search for "Malolos Congress", you'd be presented with this dab page, which shouldn't be the case. The "Malolos Congress" can be explained as one "continuing body", with members being "co-opted" from one form of government to the next. Are the memberships of the body that drafted the constitution, and the supposed legislature of the Malolos Republic the same? One best analogy was what happened is that there's a "constituent assembly". In the current constitution of the Philippines, one of the modes of amending it is by Congress constituting itself as a "Constituent Assembly"; this is different from a constitutional convention which is a whole new body with a different mandate altogether. Marcos tried transforming Congress into a constituent assembly in 1967, but was defeated, so a constitutional convention was elected, instead.

As for the supposed name of the assembly, the English translation I always get is "Assembly of Representatives", but "Malolos Congress" is a clear winner WP:NC-wise. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:BOLDly recast this discussion as a subsection of the #This article section which immediately preceded it, as it proposes undoing the action taken following non-discussion there which resulted in recasting the article as a DAB page and doing other work described there. I'm not sure what, exactly, is being proposed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose "Bring back the Malolos Congress article" isn't clear enough? Ibalik ang artikulo tungkol sa Kongreso ng Malolos. I wish I can speak Cebuano. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear on precisely what you are proposing. Re the name(s) of the body, I see that (Kalaw 1927) calls the body assembled by Aguinaldo The Revolutionary Congress on p. 120 and simply Congress elsewhere, and that the constitution written by that body (as presented here) calls the legislature the body morphed into once the constitution was promulgated the Asociación de Representantes de la Nación (in Spanish, which is translated into English as Assembly of Representatives of the Nation as presented there); Kalaw calls it Assembly of Representatives and National Assembly on p. 127. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: You have my support. It's confusing why the first ever "Congress" in the Philippines has no entry on Wikipedia. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My god. The body that is now called the "Malolos Congress" should have its own article. I honestly dunno how for the love of Emilio Aguinaldo can that be any simpler. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I think you might be asking for: An article with that name (the mainspace name for this talk page -- now a disambig page) which is similar in concept to the Continental Congress article about a predecessor to the US Congress, with content about a body referred to in some (cited) RSs as Malolos Congress. I note that this name is not currently a wikilink target from many mainspace articles (see here), but mainspace wikilinks to the two current disambiguation page targets ought to be re-examined and re-thought if this is done. Such an article ought to draw a distinction between two periods during the existence of that body analogous to the the September 5 to October 26, 1774 period of the First Continental Congress and the March 1, 1781, to March 4, 1789 periods of the Congress of the Confederation. Do I have that somewhat correct?
Question. Is it really necessary to differentiate the constituent assembly that drafted the Malolos Constitution from the legislature formed by that constitution composed of the same members of the constituent assembly? Both came to be known as Malolos Congress whose members for the National Assembly were the same elected officials of the constituent assembly (with provisional delegates appointed for far flung provinces). If it is not possible to merge the two, i suggest the constituent assembly be covered by the Malolos Congress article while the legislature it transformed to after passage of constitution be located at National Assembly (First Philippine Republic)?--RioHondo (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be useful, similar to the distinction drawn in the Continental Congress article mentioned above, to draw a distinction between the similarly-named bodies as initially created and as later constituted as a part of a government with a promulgated constitution -- that constitution setting forth functions for that body within that government which differed from the functions of the body as initially created. The aims of the similarly-named bodies during those two periods differed, nonwithstanding that they largely had the same membership. That Continental Congress article has separate sections for the body referred to by that name covering the separate time periods during which the body had such differing functions, and separate WP:SS detail articles cover each of those timeframes, similar in concept to the two articles targeted by the current disambiguation page for which this is a talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. So we really have to come up with a separate National Assembly (First Philippine Republic) article covering the legislature of that same period and government from January 23, 1899 to March 23, 1901, while restoring the original contents of this article but tweaking it to only refer to the constituent assembly of the Revolutionary Government between September 15, 1898 to January 21, 1899. The ratification of June 12 independence declaration and constitution being the only significant legislations of the Malolos Congress constituent assembly, while the declaration of war against US by Assembly President Paterno being a legislation of the National Assembly. Did i get it right? ;) Is the congress/constituent assembly that drafted the constitution the primary topic for Malolos Congress anyway? Or is Malolos Congress more associated with the National Assembly of the 1st Republic? I think we have this to sort out first.--RioHondo (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The Malolos Congress. The National Historical Institute. 1999. ISBN 9789715381222. creates a fuzzy divide, noting "Two days later, January 23, 1899, the Philippine Republic with Aguilnaldo as President, was inaugurated at Malolos. The Malolos Congress henceforth came to be known as "National Assembly", the title assigned to it by the constitution." However, there is not equal coverage in the book. Pages 13 to 20 cover the initial body (which apparently was explicitly not a "constituent assembly" according to Mabini), and there is literally a paragraph after the name change covering the Philippine Republic. I feel this heavy skewing of "Malolos Congress" referring to the Revolutionary Congress rather than the National Assembly is not uncommon. Based on this I'd support suggestions above by Riohondo and Wtmitchell of a Malolos Congress article focusing on the Revolutionary Congress. If there is a disambiguation issue, it can be hatnoted per WP:ONEOTHER. I don't think the National Assembly needs its own article however, it wasn't around very long and is so unimportant it is so far effectively unmentioned in the First Philippine Republic article. CMD (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @RioHondo: Well, not quite. I take it that you are suggesting that disambiguation is not necessary since there is only one proper usage. I'm not sure which side of this usage question the consensus of RSs and of popular usage would come down on. I'm firming up my thoughts on this as we go along and I note that the current disambig entries don't link to strictly relevant targets but to articles about declared governments which include legislative components that would be suitable targets if wikilinkable. What you say sounds reasonable if that usage consensus is as I think you suggest. In that case, the wikilink here ought to be adjusted to link the new National Assembly (First Philippine Republic) article, and adjustments would need to be made elsewhere. As a sidebar top-of-head comment, I don't think that body did much or, if it did, where that is documented. That body came into existence on January 21, 1899 and the government of which it was a part abandoned Malolos sometime prior to March 30; I'm not sure when, where, or whether that National Assembly met following its establishment, especially considering Article 99 here. FWIW, the pre-disambig content of this article is here.
@CMD: Thanks. I note that your closing comment re the significance of the National Assembly sort-of agree with mine. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are all in agreement that the revolutionary congress that drafted the Malolos Constitution is the primary topic here then. But the National Assembly it created is mentioned a lot too in other articles, most notably the List of legislatures of the Philippines. Also, it is mentioned in PH congress websites: Senate.gov.ph and Congress.gov.ph so this first national legislature has got to be important and worthy of its own article? The National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic) only lasted for less than 5mos with barely any significant legislation to show for either lol. My only interest in these articles is those delegates, many of which have their own articles here and being able to link to the specific legislature they served in, which was the National Assembly and which was initially at the Malolos Congress page combined with the preceding constituent assembly before it was turned into a dab page.--RioHondo (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the Malolos Congress is concerned, nothing changed on January 23, 1899. It's still the same body, and that body in either side of that date is called the "Malolos Congress" in the 21st century. We don't split the 2nd Commonwealth Congress and the 1st Congress of the Philippines. It's all in one article. I fail to see where the supposed distinction is. The Malolos Congress existed. It being served by this dab page is a massive failure. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The fundamental character of the body changed, even if its membership did not. As far as naming goes, requoting a NHI (now NHCP) publication quoted and cited above by @CMD: "[On] January 23, 1899, the Philippine Republic with Aguilnaldo [sic] as President, was inaugurated at Malolos. The Malolos Congress henceforth came to be known as 'National Assembly'.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its fundamental character, to legislate, is still that. The "constitutional regime" governing it may have been different, but it is still the same "Malolos Congress" that we call right now; "The Malolos Congress henceforth came to be known as 'National Assembly'.", but for some reason, we're still calling it as "Malolos Congress" in 2021. This is the same as the 2nd Commonwealth Congress, which was co-opted to become the 1st Congress. Its mandate was never extinguished just because the First Republic was inaugurated. The Malolos Congress never dissolved itself when the First Republic was declared. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has the Malolos Congress met after January 23, 1899? Just a few days later, the Philippine-American War started. The article before this was transformed to a dab page said that the Malolos Congress met from September 15, 1898 to November 13, 1899. It mentioned a special session on February 4, 1899. On March 31, Americans captured Malolos, and you would probably think that an assembly of that size could not have met at those kinds of conditions with Aguinaldo fleeing. Is that special session on February 4, 1899 substantially different from say, the one before January 23? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the source I mentioned above, Mabini stated the Revolutionary Congress did not have the power to legislate per the organic law that had been adopted, and was merely a consultative body. Nonetheless it does seem Mabini was in a constant minority of opinion at the time. Regarding the National Assembly, the Kalaw source (old but reads quite well) says it kept meeting through to at least March on page 133, but I can't see anything about a February special session. CMD (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This book has the laws of the Malolos Congress. Most of these are decrees (presumably, Aguinaldo himself issued these, like what Marcos did with his presidential decrees), while a few are "laws", presumably these were the ones made by the Malolos Congress. Granted, not all of the laws and decrees were compiled, but this is the best list I can find.
Presumably, constitutional conventions (i.e., the revolutionary Congress pre-January 23, 1899) cannot actually legislate on anything; it can only write (or vote on) the constitution. Now, apparently, it became the legislative branch of the constitution that they approved after January 23, 1899. The approval of the constitution and inauguration of the new republic did not extinguish the mandate of the body that is now known as the Malolos Congress. There was no dissolution in a parliamentary sense. I don't think the body adjourned sine die before January 23, 1899, either. It's one body. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know anymore tbh, i was just going by what i thought the two were suggesting earlier. But yea they were basically the same bunch of delegates, nothing changed in terms of composition or mandate, and creating a separate article and category for members of the national assembly might also cause an issue with redundancy now that i think about it. I totally get the second commonwealth congress-1st congress analogy, ive done a series of articles and tables for those i think lol. But if redundancy is a good compromise, i guess im good with it than having no article at all.--RioHondo (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent to the promulgation of The 1899 Malolos Constitution, and not prior to that date, the mandate of the National Assembly was defined there. The National Assembly of the Philippines article currently covers bodies with that name post-1935. I'm thinking that article ought to cover the National Assembly of the First Philippine Republic as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are very different bodies, I wouldn't combine them as such as an article topic. I'm still not seeing how much separate information there is on the 1899 ASsembly, so I'd just include a summary of it either at the end of a potential Revolutionary Congress article and/or in First Philippine Republic. CMD (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one calls the "Malolos Congress" as "National Assembly" or "Assembly of Representatives" or "Revolutionary Congress" or anything else, at least in English, in 2021. By "no one" meaning the WP:NC of the subject of the article. The body that met from 1898 to 1899 was known as the "Malolos Congress". There was an election in 1898 for members of this body. Nothing changed when the First Republic was inaugurated on January 23, 1899. It's clear that the body before and after that date are the same body, with the same mandate (of the 1898 election), no dissolution happened, it did not adjourn sine die. It's the same thing. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for this? The one I found is pretty clear that there were different mandates emerging from different sources of law, the first being the organic law of the Revolutionary Government, the second being the Constitution. CMD (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Mandate," at least when it comes to legislatures, usually means "electoral mandate"; that being no elections after January 23, 1899, the body co-opted (at least this what appears to have happened) to be the legislative branch of the constitution it just approved. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per the source above, their electoral mandate took place under the organic law of the Revolutionary Government. That is not the same as a mandate under the Constitution. CMD (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So who's authority were they meeting under after January 23, 1899? The "Revolutionary Congress" never dissolved itself, adjourned sine die, or called for elections, before January 23, 1899, isn't it? The mandate they had before and after January 23, 1899 was one and the same: the one that elected (and appointed) them in 1898. This seems to be a clear case of co-option. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer myself, Article 98 of the Malolos Constitution states "The present Congress, composed of members by suffrage or by decree, shall last for four years, or for the duration of the present legislative term commencing on the 15th of April of next year." This is clear co-option to me. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Presumably under their own authority that they created through Article 98 of the constitution they wrote. You don't need an election to stay in power. CMD (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is self-serving, and with the Americans encroaching, you could probably understand how they decided to do that. Co-option is pretty regular for legislatures to transition to one form of authority to the next; avoids for calling fresh elections. President Aguinaldo himself though, was not co-opted; he was elected as president of the republic on January 1, 1899, and took office as such on January 23, when his position as "president of the revolutionary government" ended. The Malolos Congress, as a body, did not do this; they co-opted. It's pretty clear that if the Americans didn't invade, there would have been elections after the then current terms ended on April 15, 1904. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(inserted) This is an insertion done after the discussion passed this point, just speaking to the hypothetical above beginning, "It's pretty clear that if the Americans didn't invade, there would have been elections after ...". The Revolutionary Government, which held the elections, followed on the Dictatorial Government of the Philippines, which formed in response to the American presence in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War. Quoting a bit from (Bell 1927 p.67[1]) speaking about Aguinaldo in Hong Kong with the Hong Kong Junta in early May 1898, with American forces on the ground in the Philippines:
... if [American action in the Philippines resulted in independence from Spain], Aguinaldo should leave immediately, in order to prevent a scramble for position between more ambitious insurgent leaders [...] The pressure was irrestible; Aguinaldo decided to return to the Philippines.
Aguinaldo arrived in the Philippines on May 24, and formation of those two governments followed soon after; the election period was from June to September. It's pretty clear to me that if (hypotherically) the Americans had not been in the Philippines, Aguinaldo would probably not have travelled to the Philippines, those governments would not have been formed, and there would have been no elections. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not following how their reasoning affects this discussion. As you note there were no elections under the constitution, and referring back to the source again, the Congress and its elections were created/held "in accordance with the provisions of the decree of June 18." Still interested in any sources you may have on the matter. CMD (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: National Assembly of the Philippines. Considering a separate article for the National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic) exists, i see no reason why this Malolos Congress assembly should be lumped together with that of a totally different legislature from a totally different historical period. I am actually considering an RM for that article to National Assembly (Commonwealth of the Philippines) considering there's at least three of them with that name from completely different earlier governments. This National Assembly of the 1st Republic just happened to have the  WP:COMMONNAME of Malolos Congress. And HTD could not have been more spot on as to the mandate of this congress and membership having been instituted on the same date of the 1898 election and therefore could not have been two different bodies and should be treated as one topic, that again just happened to be commonly referred to as the Malolos Congress.--RioHondo (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source I referenced above states the specific mandate under which and for which the Revolutionary Congress was founded, and then the process through which they developed a new mandate. Do you have a source saying the mandate was the same? CMD (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Article 98 of the 1899 constitution cited by HTD above was very clear on the provisional nature of the mandate of the assembly and its members. When it says "the present Congress", it refers to the same Revolutionary Congress that adopted the name "Assembly of Representatives" and whose powers or mandate Article 11 of Chapter II of the June 23 1898 decree establishing the Revolutionary Government says are derived from the same provision under Article 6 of the earlier June 18 1898 decree establishing the Dictatorial Government. So until a law said otherwise, the 1899 constitution of the First Republic was still operating under the conditions of the Revolutionary Government and Congress with the same Revolutionary President (Aguinaldo per Article 97) set forth by the earlier Dictatorial Government. The 1899 constitution only provided for term limits which were absent in the previous revolutionary or dictatorial decrees for both executive and legislative branches. So the existing Congress after the promulgation of the 1899 constitution was still the same Revolutionary Congress, the Malolos Congress being "The present Congress", with the same mandate (politics) or authority to hold office derived from earlier decrees that had not been repealed or replaced.--RioHondo (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I've added a Legislature section to the First Philippine Republic article. That section refers to the legislature by name as the National Assembly and says that its initial membership was carried over from the Malolos Congress. Please improve that as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call to action

[edit]

It's time to restore the Malolos Congress article, to the tune of how local legislature articles look like. This has gone for too long. The 1st legislature of the Philippines deserves its first article and doesn't have to be relegated as an afterthought to two articles. The fact that we can't even link on Malolos Congress on articles is a major travesty. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support. At the end of the day, its all about what most sources call this legislature. And for the record and just to reiterate, i absolutely disagree with those earlier comments dismissing the relevance of this legislative body. Its importance as a subject of PH history and popularity even surpasses those of the two other similarly named assemblies.--RioHondo (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So it has been restored. It'll be hard to undo years of linking it back to this article, as the phrase itself was turned into a dab page, which meant everyone is obligated to link this elsewhere. It's like linking "4th Congress of the Philippines" to "Third Philippine Republic". I hope such haphazard steps would not be taken again, more so in a very important subject such as this one. It's a complete waste of time relinking all instances of "Malolos Congress" back to this article, instead of actually writing articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to illustrate how silly this was, in New Generation Currency Series, the Malolos Congress was featured on the 200-peso bill, with the actual article saying "Opening of the Malolos Congress" but once you clicked "Malolos Congress", it went to another article altogether, and it was NOT what the article was talking about. We'd have to undo all of this. What a waste of time! Howard the Duck (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: Undo all the links or undo the restoration of the article? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undo all of the links. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May i suggest next time to take these matters to the WT:TAMBAY page before carrying out anything drastic like merging articles or replacing them with disambiguation links? Anything that concerns Philippine history especially topics that are well established like this one. A discussion was not even pursued, and although a notice was served, it was carried out unilaterally in less than a week as i just learned from the preceding section with no public consultation whatsoever. I didnt even realize the article ive been linking to in those series of articles i made recently was already gone until robots or other editors were changing the target of those links. ;) So to our foreign partners, please use the WP PH project talk page or the WP PH History task force page at least and give people time to address your skepticism on any of the history related articles. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opening a discussion at WT:TAMBAY about this three years ago or mentioning there the discussion I opened here might have been helpful. Looking back, I see that I did not do that in this case. I have tried that in other cases, though, without much success. On this case, you'll see above that I stated my concerns here and called for discussion on 9 April 2018, waited a week and, when no discussion had ensued after a week, I stated my intention to make the change to a disambiguation page on 16 April, then made the change on 17 April. As far as unilateral action after calling for discussion with no results goes, quoting from WP:SILENCE#Rationale: "You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." My change from what I took to be implied consensus stood for three years. It has now been revised after discussion here which would have been benificial three years ago. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I thought there was consensus discussion about this, because after all, this was Top-rated in importance before it was turned into a dab page. That's why I didn't raise a stink until I found out there was no discussion, even consensus, of doing this. The non-discussion didn't even last a full week. It's actually hard to fix up the links here because you'd have to read the context: maybe the prose was indeed referring to the Revolutionary Government instead of the Malolos Congress. It's not as easy as changing "Line 2" to "LRT Line 2" which are identical (even that is not finished and it's almost a year!). Howard the Duck (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Antigua"

[edit]

@Howard the Duck, RioHondo, Seav, and Wtmitchell: Was this a typo in the book The development of Philippine politics or a former name of Antique? It's kinda weird because the Spanish source uses "Antique" (English word for antiguo) while one of the English sources uses "Antigua" (Spanish for ancient or antique). Antique's name was derived from hamtik, right? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to List of Philippine provincial name etymologies, "Antique" did come from "Hamtic", but was formally rendered as "Antique" in the Spanish language. Pedro Paterno's official list though uses "Antique". Howard the Duck (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: Do you know where Antigua came from? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Antigua is Spanish for "old". There was a mix-up in here somewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Bell, Ronald Kenneth (April 1974). The Filipino Junta in Hong Kong, 1898-1903:history of a revolutionary organization (Thesis). Naval Postgraduate School.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malolos_Congress&oldid=1203861771"