Talk:Republic of Biak-na-Bato

New "Background" section and Infobox content re Preceded / Succeeded

I happened to look at this article yesterday, and was confused by the infobox preceding / succeeding content until what I take to be the intent struck me.

This article uses {{Infobox former country}}, which I see is in the process of merger with {{Infobox country}}. Because of this, I am not going to make changes to the relevant infobox content at this time. I think it ought to be discussed, though.

My problem with that is that I had to stop and think in order to figure it out and, if it is important enough to this article to make that clear (and I think it is), it ought to be made clearer. I don't see how this would be easily possible with the current intentional infobox parameter misuse technique.

I looked at the code in the merge-from and the merge-to infoboxes and I see that they are both currently coded in wikitext. I don't know whether the merge target is intended to be coded as wikitext of in WP:LUA. Either way, though, I doubt that provision is being made to deal with this as part of the merge.

I've added a new section to the article headed "Background" in an attempt to clarify this. This new section needs more work. Something similar to this probably needs to be added to other articles about similar Philippine polities during Spanish and American colonial times (Tagalog Republic, Tejeros Convention, Cantonal Republic of Negros, Central Executive Committee (Philippines), First Philippine Republic, Republic of Zamboanga, perhaps others articles). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Constitution

This WP:BOLD edit caught my eye. Per WP:BRD, I have Reverted the edit. Please Discuss below as needed.

The edit inserts content which asserts that governmental power was divided between three organs of government. However, as I read the Constitution of Biak-na-Bato here, governmental power was vested in the Supreme Council, with the Supreme Council of Grace and Justice having no independent authority and the Assembly of Representatives only having authority to authorize privateering and issue letters of marque, to meet for elections to fill certain vacant offices, and to meet after two years to promulgate a new Constitution and the election of a new Council of Government and Representatives. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Acasarealjf.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding to the flag

The actual flag that was used in Biak-na-Bato [ the plain red field with 16 rays and within the center was Baybayin Ka ᜃ ] was based on the illustration of Artemio Ricarte while the flag was lowered. When the Revolutionary Government of Biak-na-Bato made truce with the Spanish Colonial Government in the Pact of Biak-na-Bato. As seen on this image

The same design was also used by both the Katipunan factions of Magdalo and Magdiwang in Cavite and was used in the Battle of Noveleta. As seen on this image

The purported flag [ the red field with a white anthropomorphic sun ] was based on the "Evolution of the Philippine Flag" which has been long outdated and no evidence of historical usage. Please see the page

So the information of this topic was based on this sources:

https://xiaochua.net/tag/philippine-flag/page/2/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340682475_Ang_Mararangal_na_Sagisag_ng_Katipunan_ng_mga_Anak_ng_Bayan_The_Heraldry_of_the_Katipunan_Society_of_the_Children_of_the_Nation (p. 163 - 165) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HaFLn18BCV4 https://m.facebook.com/BonifacioTrialMuseum/photos/a.1434996683475685/2676039706038037/?type=3 Adori10 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The first URL took me to an error page for me. The internet archive said that the page isn't archived. (see [https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://xiaochua.net/tag/philippine-flag/page/2/[).

The second URL also took me to an error page. The internet archive said that the page isn't archived. (see [1]).

The third URL took me to a page offering free download of a book in PDF form. I downloaded the book. It's in Tagalog, which I do not read, but it looks impressive. From information in the page headings, I see that it might be cited as in wikitext something like: Alfonso, Ian Christopher B. (2004). "Ang Mararangal na Sagisag ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan". Historical Bulletin. Philippine Historical Association. (see figure 2 on p. 164).

The fourth URL took me to a YouTube video that might be cited something like: Salvador H. Laurel. Republika Ng Biak-na-Bato 1897-1997 (YouTube video). Event occurs at 0:14-0:16.. That cite could no doubt be improved a lot -- I'm not used to using that template.

The fifth URL took me to a facebook page apparently showing one slide of a slide set. It might be cited as National Historic Commission of the Philippines. "Flag of the Biak-na-Bato Republic". facebook.com.

I hope the above is useful. Please read WP:V, WP:CITE, and [WP:EDITWAR]]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I already shared the sources from the summary edits of my argument, according to Filipino Historian Xiao Chua himself, the flag that @Adori10 and @Vif12vf trying to insinuate is a flag that was made in 1906 for the supposed tagalog republic headed by Macario Sakay which is the aftermath of the time of Emilio Aguinaldo capture at Palanan, Isabela, the one that Im trying to share and insert is the Flag of the Tagalog people (or known as the Sun of Liberty Flag in the local Philippines) that was officially used to be the Flag of the Philippines in March 17, 1897, hence why in Philippine History is considered as "the First revision of the Philippine flag" or "First Offical flag of the Philippines".

Trying to insert the 1906 Tagalog Republic flag of Macario Sakay to a time period where it still doesnt exist yet is the same analogy of inserting the Nazi flag to the time period of the German Empire's Tri-Color standard which the Nazi flag still not existing.

Please look these sources that I shared in the summary (I assume @Vif12vf didnt have the time to even verify these sources as he even reverted my edits with the attached references):

https://www.oldest.org/culture/oldest-philippine-flags/

https://www.philippinemasonry.org/icons-of-freedom.html

https://lltm.tripod.com/flags2.html

https://ncca.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BALANGHAY-MAY-JUNE-2012.pdf

my sources is not limited to what is listed here, anyone can find other sources in the internet, it is very much widespread knowledge in the Philippines that the "Sun of Liberty Flag" or the "Flag of the Tagalog people" as called in wikipedia, is what is used at the time period of the Republic of Biak na Bato, Tejeros Government and the Central Executive Committee RA9Markus (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources supporting content in a WP article need to be cited in the article itself as required by WP:V and as explained further in WP:CITE and elsewhere, not "shared" by mentioning them in an edit summary or on an article talk page. Also, significant viewpoints expressed by any source (e.g., by Xiao Chua) may differ from significant viewpoints expressed by other similarly weighty sourceS;. I don't know whether or not that is the case here, but WP policy for handling such a situation is explained here. Please continue this discussion at Talk:List of flags of the Philippines § Edit exchanges over flags, and a flag seemingly missing from this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)