Talk:Philippine–American War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removed the "Quotations" section

The Quotations section is antithetical to proper sequencing of events which is the established norm in making historical narratives. Events should be placed in their proper sequence. The alleged statements occurred prior to the Thomasites, hence it has no place after it. Further, the quotations are irrelevant, moot and academic and a clear case of POV. It is irrelevant because the article talks about the conduct of the war and not on what Mark Twain's opinion was on the Treaty of Paris. Further, his statements are already moot and academic (resolved) in view of the fact that America subsequently adopted a policy of eventually giving independence to the Philippines -when its inhabitants are ready. This is evidenced by various presidential issuances and legislative acts passed by the American Congress which culminated in the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie Act. Hence, to use his statements, as if it was the controlling American policy at the time, is not only irrelevant and misleading, it is a clear case of POV. Putting that section will only make this article further appear like a Philippine leftist propaganda than a real encyclopedic reading material. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the "weasel" tag in Filipino Atrocities section

You say bad things about America all you want and when bad things are said about the Filipinos in this conflict, you call it "weasel"? Oh com'on, where's the balance? The narrative is based on fact, NOT weasel. If you insist on doing that, then this article is nothing more than a leftist-propaganda, a hate campaign typical among leftist historians in the Philippines. I'm removing the tag. It has no valid justification at all. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term War instead of insurrection

Use of the term War: How can an insurrection by an American Colony against the Mother Country be classified as a war? Seems rather disengenuous to me. - Because the Philippines had declared independence from the Spaniards before the US claimed it as a territory. Although unrecognized by major powers, the Philippines was an independent state when Aguinaldo signed the Declaration of Independence on June 12, 1898 and ratified a constitution by October. The Treaty of Paris ending the US-Spanish war was not until Dec. 10, 1898. Arguably, the US invaded a soverign nation when it moved troops to Manila. That's why it's a War, and not an Insurrection. Although if you follow the wiki links to the political atmosphere of the time in the US towards the Philippines, you may be able to imagine why Americans would ignore such distinctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.110.226.206 (talk • contribs)

"Use of the term War: How can an insurrection by an American Colony against the Mother Country be classified as a war? Seems rather disengenuous to me."

I'm not even going to talk any more about the obvious arrogance of that statement, or the probability that you're an American neoconservative. On purely factual grounds, usage of the term war is correct because the Americans had not yet conquered the Philippines when the war started. They conquered the Philippines during the war. Get it? The term "insurrection" is what's disingenuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.195.219 (talk • contribs) 09:20, June 27, 2008

Also, some American historians viewed the Philippines as a colony therefore, the term they used was 'insurrection'. Some Filipino historians, took the view of the revolutionaries who were fighting for independence with or without American intervention or aid. It was extremely disappointing for them to have one colonizer replace another. I believe that they were also outraged at the term insurrection. It was not made clear or agreed upon with Filipino leaders that the Philippines was to be under the United States. Thanks of course to the Spanish -American war, the Spanish forces were weakening and the revolutionaries were intent on independence and declared it at best opportune. --Jondel 06:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "insurrection" was a term used by contemporary Americans to justify there presence in the Philippines. It was only an insurrection, because there was a small group of Filipinos that were resisiting America's wonderful spread of freedom and democracy. America was not invading the Philippines, and America had full right to be there--the "insurrectionists" (those who wanted full independence) were the real trouble makers, not the American invaders. Today most historians call the Philippine insurection for what it truly was: a war. I think a better name would be the American invasion of the Philippines, but most historians call it a "war".

The only "disengenuous" party here is the anon and those Americans, past and present who see American invasions as spreading freedom and democracy. This is the dillusional and dangerous mistake.Travb 18:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please. The Filipinos were glad to have American help when they declared war on Spain in 1898. The victory at Manila Bay was the victory they never could have achieved without American aid. When the United States declared war on Spain, it was greatly due to a desire to revenge the explosion on the Maine and to help the Cuban revolutionaries. The Philippines were never really considered, and there was no intent on the Americans' part to colonize the Philippines prior to December 1898. As soon as American forces took Manila on August 13, Aguinaldo made it a point to surround the city with revolutionaries and pen the Americans in, fearing that if they expanded outside Manila, they would want to colonize the entire archipelago. Tensions immediately rose, and were exacerbated later when Aguinaldo chose as his cabinet men who were distinctly anti-American. In the fall of 1898, as he was exerting his control over the rest of the country, Aguinaldo was recruiting revolutionaries inside Manila to coordinate with his eventual attack on the city. These militiamen were to rise up and slaughter off-duty US soldiers, and any American civilians in the city, including the wives and children of the military stationed there. Aguinaldo was never once given a promise of independence by the Americans, and he knew colonization was a possibility. It was not an invasion, as you put it, since US forces were already in the country at the earlier behest of the revolutionaries. It sounds to me like you clearly have it in for present-day America, and are expressing that in areas where it has no application. (71.58.170.196 02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

That's a remarkably biased recount. 1. The Filipinos were glad to have U.S. help in 1898. That's certainly true, but unless you want to argue that France had the right to take the United States as a colony in 1783, it's also irrelevant. 2. It was the Filipino Army of Liberation, led by Aguinaldo, that defeated the Spanish Army throughout the Philippines, not the U.S. When the American arrived in Manila, the Filipinos were already surrounding the city. They let the U.S. take over part of the line around the city. 3. The start of the war can be laid to both sides as tensions throughout the fall of 1898 were caused by incidents on both sides. 4. The promise of independence remains controversial, but the only witness to the conversation between Aguinaldo and Spencer Pratt, the U.S. consul who made the promise, supported Aguinaldo's version (having said that, he was an English translator who later worked for Aguinaldo, so his version is suspect as well).

History is easier to do and more accurate if you don't spend time bending over backward to make one side the "good guys" and one side the "bad guys." The rush of blood to the head is less, as well. Silbey 19 March 2007

Anon said "How can an insurrection by an American Colony against the Mother Country be classified as a war?" Perhaps we should apply that logic to all articles - such as "American Insurrection of Independence." EamonnPKeane (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure the Filipinos were glad to have American help at first. And this proves what exactly...? That the Americans have the right to colonize them for that? And US "help" to the Philippines was limited to a single victory over an obsolete Spanish fleet that could not possibly have hindered the Filipinos on land. After this, the US and Spain staged a mock battle in Manila to preserve Spanish honor and increase American leverage in the country.

You say that "Aguinaldo made it a point to surround the city with revolutionaries and pen the Americans in". There's a different way of looking at it: that after the Spanish in Manila surrendered to the Americans, they prevented the Filipinos from getting in, contrary to their claim of being allies of the Filipinos in their struggle for independence. Even you yourself admit that the US never made a guarantee of Filipino independence, which calls your statement that "there was no intent on the Americans' part to colonize the Philippines prior to December 1898" into doubt.

And to say that it was not an invasion just because the Americans were already in the country (actually, just Manila) is "disingenuous". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.195.219 (talk • contribs) 09:20, June 27, 2008

Another anon said: "Because the Philippines had declared independence from the Spaniards before the US claimed it as a territory. Although unrecognized by major powers, the Philippines was an independent state when Aguinaldo signed the Declaration of Independence on June 12, 1898 and ratified a constitution by October." I would say, rather, that the Phils - as personified by the group issuing that declaration - considered itself to be an independent state. Issuance of a declaration does not in itself make make the declared statement into a fact. Also, I'm mindful of Article 3 of the August 12, 1898 Protocol of Peace between the U.S. and Spain, Embodying the Terms of a Basis for the Establishment of Peace between the two countries: "The United States will occupy and hold the city, bay and harbor of Manila, pending the conclusion of a treaty of peace which shall determine the control, disposition, and government of the Philippines." -- see http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/pr980812.html. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion

I have strived to make this the best article on wikipedia. The disputed section had no sources at all. I added {{fact}} tags and source templates and they were removed. Since I did not want to get into an edit war over {{fact}} tags and source templates I found around 10 new articles on the issue at hand and added them to this page. I exhastively researched everything that I could in this section, spending about three or four hours of my time. As a result, this section is better than before I started. I want to keep this section sourced correctly and avoid the section becoming uncited again.

Please cite all edits, with page number if necessary to this section. If you have any questions about any of my edits, please don't hestitate to ask. I look forward to working with you in the future.

signed:Travb (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Added at least 10 footnotes

I added at least 10 footnotes, I am proud to say that every word of Philippine-American_War#Aguinaldo_and_Bonifacio_power_struggle is now exhasatively footnoted, except the very last sentence.

Philippine-American_War#Aguinaldo.27s_exile_and_return Still needs more work but I know that I will probably end up doing it myself later.Travb (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Philippine-American_War#Filipino power struggle edits

I added back some of the information which was deleted. I always feel that more detail is better than less detail.

For example, explaining that Bonifacio was accused of poisoning Aguinaldo instead of murder is more descriptive, explaining that "His house was surrounded. In the following combat his brother was killed and Bonifacio was shot in the arm." is more descriptive than explain it as a skirmish.

User:Uthanc Welcome to this page, I am excited for your continued contributions. You have already taught me some details about the war which I didn't know about. Your information from Constantino is very interesting.

Signed: Travb (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly and POV

In regards to allegedly:

Weasel_words#Generalization_using_weasel_words:

There are some forms of generalization which are considered unacceptable in standard writing. This category embraces what is termed a semantic cop-out, represented by the term allegedly. This phrase, which became something of a catch-phrase on the weekly satirical BBC television show, Have I Got News For You, implies an absence of ownership of opinion which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated.

I have been working on this page for the past 9 months. The reason the atrocities of the Filipinos against the Americans was added was as a comprimise, after I added extensive information on US attrocities. Max Boot, for one, lists in detail the attrocities of the Filipinos in this massacre. Since he is a historian, (albiet one who I strongly dislike and see as an American apologist who disgusts me--see the American_empire#External_links for an article which tells you a lot about his views), his words about this massacre belong here to give more "balance" to the attrocities of the US. Remember, this was a comprimise between what I see as US apologists. Since the information about the Balangiga Massacre was explained in detail by a historian, it should be included here.

However, Filipino historians counter that in their view, it (of course) was a brave endeavour, the Americans were attacked by bolo-wielding guerillas and thus naturally would suffer such wounds, and that the subsequent American repatriations under General Jacob H. Smith (who infamously ordered his men to kill every male over ten) were the "true" massacres in Samar.

This sentence has a few errors. First of all, as per weasel words, (see above) you must list what Filipino historians.

It doesn't matter what historian said it was a "brave endeavour" that is a POV, and probably should not be included in the article.

"wielding guerillas and thus naturally would suffer such wounds, and that the subsequent American repatriations under General Jacob H. Smith (who infamously ordered his men to kill every male over ten) were the "true" massacres in Samar."

This section is POV, regardless of who says it, portions can possibly be worked into the article though if they are quoted as an opinion of a historian.

Regardless of the repatriations under General Jacob H. Smith this is a seperate event which does not reduce or increase the massacre culpability (guilt).

These are two seperate events. Smith should be tried for war crimes (and was, albiet he got a slap on the wrist), and maybe those who initiated the massacre should also have been tried for war crimes. A greater war crime, or and crime for that matter does not make the lesser war crime/crime any less. For example, in the Nurenburg trials the Nazi's cited US experiments on soldiers to justify their treatments of the Jews. These are two seperate events. Should the US government be tried for experimenting on soldiers? Definatly. Does the US government experiment on soldiers make the Nazi treatment of the Jews justifiable or any less criminal? Absolutly not. If those people in the Balangiga Massacre caused war crimes, they should be tried as war criminals, just as Jacob H. Smith was tried as a war criminal. One person's war crime does not justify someone else's war crime.

We share the same POV, as you probably now see on your user page, after I left you a comment. Please keep this in mind. We may disagree about the content of the page, but we share the same views about the war. Travb (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

unrescourced?

This article is one of, if not the most rescoured articles I've seen on the entire wikipedia website. So why is this under unrescoured articles? I meen if this is the standard for an unrescourced article, then u might as well put just about every other on this site under that same title.

JOEFIXIT

Hey JOEFIXIT, nice to see you again, it has been a while. Everytime a person puts a {{fact}} tag in an article, then it is automatically listed as an unsourced article.

There are three solutions to this:

1. find sources for the unsourced material
2. deleted the unsourced material, moving it to the talk page, and
3. deleted the fact tags without sourcing the material.

#1 and # 2 are the only two that I personally will consider.

In regards to #1, I think I have written 95% if not 100% of the sourced information here (information which has footnotes).

I was a little miffed that I had to spend hours and hours on the Aguinaldo section on google.com/print, lexis nexis academic research, the internet, and amazon books researching these sections, because the fact tags kept getting deleted.

For these remaining five tags, someone else can research this information, or we can delete the unsourced material, moving it to the talk page.

Nice to see you again, I hope you have been writing a lot about the Philippines on other pages.Travb (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Two reasons

Under The start of the war is the passive voice statement "Two reasons have been given for this" without any sourcing, without any indication of who gave those reasons, and whether they were in a position to have an expert opinion. Where did this come from? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

FYI: Reason it was never declated a war:

• The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.

signed Travb (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

Another user deleted the following from the talk page: [1] Travb (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

guerilla

The word Filipino GUERILLA is inappropriate in events that transpired before 1900 as the Philippine Army used conventional warfare against both the American and Spanish Armies before the said year. It was General Antonio Luna, who formally studied Military Science in Europe, who suggested guerilla warfare when the Philippine Army began retreating north.

Also, as the article writers seem to agree that it was a Philippine-American War and not a Philippine Insurrection, I suggest you refrain from using "resistance fighters", "guerilla fighters", or related words but instead the Philippine Army. We must take note that before the outbreak of the hostilities, Philippine Independence had already been declared and control of the entire archipelago by the Philippine Army established with the exception of Manila. The only reason other historians (particularly Americans) are contesting the use of "insurection" is that no established world power ever recognized the June 12, 1898 independence declaration. It is just sad that America had no enemies during the said declaration to support our independence, except for Spain which is obviously unlikely to recognize it either. 203.177.138.216 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Josh Aviñante

Moved WP:AWW statment to talk page

I moved this to the talk page:

Many would consider the conflict to be one of the U.S.'s "forgotten wars" due to present-day lack of public knowledge of the conflict by the American people.

Another user just added this sentence to the first paragaph. Excellent point, and I agree 100%. Problem is it is not a sourced statment, and it suffers from WP:AWW. "Many" who? Anyway, thanks for the contribution, and I look forward to working with you some more. Have a great weekend. Travb (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting facts

[Governor-General] Jaudenes ... believed that the Spanish position was hopeless in the face of a superior enemy and in the face of the Filipino rebels. To save face, he insisted that to satisfy the Spanish code of honor, there should be a mock battle, after which the Spanish forces would surrender. He further insisted that the Filipino rebels should not be allowed to participate in the surrender of Manila, that is to say, they should not be allowed to enter the city. Dewey and Merritt accepted the terms even it meant treachery to their ally, General Aguinaldo. Dewey went so far as to promise to hold back the Filipino troops while the mock battle was being enacted. This agreement between Jaudenes, on one hand, and Dewey and Merritt, on the other, was so secret that no one else in either camp knew of its existence.

...on the eve of the mock assault on Manila, General Anderson had the insolence to telegraph Aguinaldo: "Do not let your troops enter Manila without the permission of the American commander. On this side of the Pasig River you will be under fire".

From History of the Filipino People 8th ed. by Teodoro Agoncillo, ISBN 971-1024-15-2.

"Insolence" is definitely POV, though. This is about the fall of Manila, not the Battle of Manila Bay (1898). And if anyone asks, I'm not leftist or rightist. Uthanc 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Add it to the article, if you don't add it to the article, it will never be added. Although the author may be POV, that doesn't mean you can't include the quote. If someone wants to balance out the POV, they can, but the quote can go in as is. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Information removed

The following has just been removed:

There were two rival Katipunan factions in Cavite - the Magdalo, led by Baldomero Aguinaldo, cousin to Emilio, and the Magdiwang, led by Mariano Alvarez, an in-law of Bonifacio. Leaders of both factions came from the elite upper class, in contrast to Bonifacio, who came from the lower middle class. The Caviteño leaders sent out a manifesto calling for a revolutionary government. Significantly, this was in direct defiance to Bonifacio's leadership, who had in fact already declared a revolutionary government of sorts called the Republika ng Katagalugan (Tagalog Republic) just before the start of the Revolution. He had reorganized the Katipunan high council into a Cabinet, with him as President. Due to animosities between the Magdalo and Magdiwang, Bonifacio was called to Cavite to mediate between them, and he brought his two brothers and his wife with him, along with his men. In a first major meeting in Imus, the issue of whether the Katipunan should be replaced by a revolutionary government was brought up, and this eclipsed the rivalry issue. The rebel leaders held a convention in Tejeros on March 22, 1897 on the pretense of more discussion between the groups, but really to settle the issue of leadership of the movement. Bonifacio presided, though reluctantly, over the elections that followed. Before they started, however, he asked that all results be respected by all, and all agreed.

The Caviteños voted their own Emilio Aguinaldo President in absentia (he was actually in the battlefield at the time). Bonifacio, due to the lack of a power base in the province, was voted Director of the Interior. The Magdiwang men, who had favored him and the Katipunan earlier in the meeting at Imus, did not vote for him either for President or Vice-President. He was instead given the minor post of Direcor of the Interior. The Katipunan as a government was thus legally abolished and replaced by the Cavite-led government, later to be called Republica Filipina (Republic of the Philippines), the first by that name.

Even so, the Caviteño elite could not accept an "uneducated" man in government (in reality Bonifacio was self-educated, having had to stop formal studies after he was orphaned in childhood). Daniel Tirona, a Magdalo man, protested Bonifacio's election, saying that the post should not be occupied by a person without a lawyer's diploma, and suggested a prominent Caviteño lawyer for the position. Offended by this treatment and refusing to accept the demotion, Bonifacio declared:

"I, as chairman of this assembly and as President of the Supreme Council of the Katipunan, as all of you do not deny, declare this assembly dissolved, and I annul all that has been approved and resolved."

Bonifacio then set out to install a rival government several days later, drawing up documents of his own. As a countermeasure, the government under Aguinaldo ordered the arrest of Bonifacio. In the following skirmish, his house was surrounded, his brothers were killed and Bonifacio was wounded in the arm and in the neck, though eyewitness accounts on Bonifacio's side attest that he did not fight back himself. He and his other brother were captured. Weak and lying on a stretcher, he was brought to Naik, where he stood trial, accused of the betrayal of the revolution and trying to poison Aguinaldo.

Bonifacio was found guilty of treason and sedition and recommended to be executed. Aguinaldo commuted the sentence to deportation on May 8, 1897, but two generals, both former supporters of Bonifacio, upon learning of this, persuaded him to withdraw the order to preserve unity among the revolutionaries. They were supported by other leaders. Andres Bonifacio and his brother were executed on May 10, 1897 by a firing squad at Mt. Nagpatong.

Some historians such as Renato Constantino have called the trial a farce and a foregone conclusion, since the jury was made up of Aguinaldo's men, the charge of conspiracy was most likely fabricated and Bonifacio was indeed an obstacle to the Cavite elite's road to power. In their eyes, he was guilty of treason and sedition, though not to the greater cause of the Revolution, as Constantino argues. In Constantino's view, Bonifacio was totally outmaneuvered. Co-patriots of the Revolution regarded this an ugly blot laid at Aguinaldo's door, though in fairness Aguinaldo originally wanted them banished instead, but changed his mind due to the advice of Bonifacio's former generals.

end of removed material

I agree this material should have been deleted, but don't agree with how it was deleted (please move deleted material to talk).

The reason I added this researched information to hold off a potential edit war been filipino nationalists. I realized it was a huge section, but I wanted to make sure there was no edit war.

So my question is where should this deleted material be moved? Best wishes, Travb (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have moved it here. I saved it on my hard drive and was planning to integrate it in Philippine Revolution and Andrés Bonifacio articles, etc. However, Renato Constantino only represents a certain POV, so some other historians should be cited also - but let's leave that for those articles. Uthanc 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

this article has been molested. not by me!

It was believed that the American soldier gave head lice to the Filipino as he entered U.S. borders but that the man's inability to understand English led to the first shot that sparked the war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.92.19.30 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

POV

This article seems extremely biased. For one, the main picture of the war shows a massacre (a strong emotional image) instead of something more generic such as a picture of soldiers shooting from trenches, marching through a city, etc. It seems to me that the origin of the bias, besides the general wikipedia bias, is the fact that this article is a source of nationalistic pride to editors of Filipino descent. In addition, the caption goes out of its way to mention that the trench was larger than included in the picture - not important enough information to be included in the main picture of a war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.157.110 (talk) 09:09, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of making a collage of pics for the infobox, similar to what has been done for other wars, while relocating this pic further down. It is a featured pic, so that warrants its inclusion in this article. There does appear to be a bias in terms of the forces depicted - e.g., no dead or wounded Americans or POWs, but the available pics highlighting the Filipino side in action at least are hard to come by. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 04:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you guys insist on the result as the Philippines remained a U.S. territory? The Philippines only became a U.S. territory (colony actually) after America conquered the First Philippine Republic. It had been independent before the U.S. acquired the archipelago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventada de Manila (talk • contribs) 12:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

First Shots of the War

replied in between Uthanc 17:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This section could use some cleaning. I suggest deleting the comment that McKinley supported the use of force if no source can be provided. Also, the sentence claiming that "the common view is that american agression started the war" also be deleted if no source substantiates that is the common view.

There are no other views to the best of my knowledge. Everyone agrees an American shot first.

-It's the semantics of it. Saying "American agression" started the war puts a slant on it that is quite different than an american sentry shooting a Filipino soldier he mistakenly thought was an insurgent.

The article would read better if we keep the primary source account from Grayson and let the reader draw his own conclusion.

Also, I question whether it is neccessary to include the conjecture that the soldier might have been drunk. Since I don't own the book it is referenced from, I'd like to see it put in context or have the source that the author used to substantiate it.

Karnow, Stanley (1990), In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines, Ballantine Books, ISBN 0345328167 - He just mentions it, so I don't know if he thought it up or if he got it from another source. Edit: now I see... Karnow says the Filipino was drunk, not the American; this was messed up in recent edits. Corrected.

Furthermore, it could be better explained that the US did not recognize the claims of independence of the philippines or the aguinaldo government. The current tone seems to insinuate that the First Philippine Republic was an established fact and not a contested issue.

Eh? It's made clear that both Spain and the U.S. ignored Aguinaldo... the declarations of independence and the First Philippine Republic are attested by lots of sources, including a constitution, and photos... an U.S. independent government was obviously contested by Britain, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

-It's more an issue of semantics, I guess. The tone of the article suggests the US maliciously ignored the sovereignty of the Aguinaldo government to avoid having to issue a formal declaration of war. In reality they genuinely did not recognize the government and believed that the US government had sovereignty over the Philippines.

Additionally, if the 'cause' of denying veterans benefits to soldiers is not substantiated by a source then it should be deleted as well.

Agreed... that's been there for quite a while.

If the sources are not included and there are no objections then I will make the edits in a few days. Robbini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.162.66 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

-I'm generally satisfied with the edits that were made. I still feel that the comment that the lack of a formal declaration of war meant veterans did not get benefits does not belong in the First Shots paragraph, because I really don't think that issue was considered when they decided not to formally declare war. It would be better served in the "consequences" section. Robbini 11:54, 28 September 2007.

POV Issues

Many of the sources that are being used as references are written by authors that have obvious agendas themselves. Some of the historians are Filipino nationalists who write with an Anti-American/Pro-Filipino POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.203.215 (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article smells of POV. WP:POV says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If there are balancing sources out there reporting from another POV than the sources cited, the POV differences should be covered in the article and sources cited. -- Boracay Bill 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, nationalist historiography is now standard for Philippine history books... and some of the American sources (esp. contemporary or near-contemporary ones) may well be anti-Filipino, so it cuts both ways. Filipino coverage probably goes more in depth and detail concerning the dynamics of the war (being the invaded side and all). Anyway, the leanings of such historians like Renato Constantino are acknowledged, and I used him for negative stuff about Filipino leaders (calling their own troops bandits). All statements using Filipino sources are cited. Is the anon saying the article needs input from a "G.I. Joe" historian in favor of the war? Good luck finding one; we all work with what we have. Uthanc 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed uncited source

I removed the following:

The McKinley administration subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an “outlaw bandit”, and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Calling the war the Philippine Insurrection emphazised the American view of the conflict as a rebellion against their lawful government, and it enabled the American government to avoid having to pay veterans benefits.

Here is the edit history of this paragraph:

03:11, 16 April 2004 added by anon 24.51.17.131 [2]: "Two reasons have been given for this. One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, when, in fact, the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila. The other was to enable the American government to avoid liablility to claims by veterans of the action." Added to this uncited sentence: The administration of US President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit". However, no formal declaration of war was ever issued. 13:52, 21 August 2006 Karnow cite added by 209.195.164.34.[3] After I added a fact tag. 14:04, 21 August 2006 I fixed the citation. [4] Seeing a two year gap between a sentence being added and a reference being provided as questionable, I later asked for page number (PAGE NUMBER??) which was never provided.

So over two years later, a citation with no page number is added. I think

"The other was to enable the American government to avoid liablility to claims by veterans of the action"

Is correct, and I read it somewhere, but I may have read it here so many times in the past two years that my mind is playing tricks on me, and I think it is legit, when it isn't. Travb (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Veterans benefits

I found a source:

The only trace of bitterness shown by veterans was over their loss of combat and travel pay, and other benefits, because the government refused to acknowledge officially that the conflict was a "war". A pamplet prepared for a 1922 reunion of the Minnesota volunteers complained that in "America's first war for humanity"--its longest since the Revolution, with the longest combat service and highest percentage of men killed or wounded--its veterans "Recieved No Bonus, No War Risk Insurance, No Adjusted Compensation, No Vocational Training and No Hospitalization Until 1922." In that year they were quietly granted veterans' benefits, although the status of the conflict remained an "insurrection".

Miller, page 272.

I find nowhere that McKinley called Aguinaldo an "outlaw bandit". He did call him an "bandit" but I can't find anywhere where he is called an "outlaw bandit". Interestingly, many other sites have picked up on this quote.

I found in google print that the "the press branded Sandino an 'outlaw bandit,'" Great Guerrilla Warriors - Page 75

Should I add back the sentence like this?:

No formal declaration of war was ever issued, which enabled the American government to avoid paying veterans benefits until 1922.

Travb (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Asia's First Republic

Would it not be worthy to note that the Philippines is Asia's first republic (the first constitutional democracy) and first country to "officially" renounce and resist western power?

Sources:

• Agoncillo, Teodoro C. [1960] (1990). History of the Filipino People, 8th edition, Quezon City: Garotech Publishing, p. 22. ISBN 971-8711-06-6.
• Alatas, Ali. A Voice for a Just Peace: A collection of speeches
• Lacsamana, Leodivico Cruz (1990). Philippine History and Government, Second Edition. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc., p. 47.
• http://library.thinkquest.org/C003235/brief.html
• http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/

Condorhero 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Better on the Philippine page, I think. Travb (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional Section - US Civil Policies

It seems to me like this article would benefit from the inclusion of a section on the policies that Americans adopted shortly after the battle at Manila. These policies focused on improving the Filipino standard of living and building new infrastructure where the old had been destroyed or outdated. I would wrote the section myself, but am no longer able to access the sources I used in a paper I wrote about this conflict.

I distinctly remember almost all of them mentioning that these civil policies led to the alienation of the insurgents under Aguinaldo and the eventual pacification of the archipelago. Seems to me like something that important should have its own section...

208.74.231.24 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

media coverage of this article

This article was mentioned and criticized by Neoconservative Max Boot on the blog of Commentary magazine[5]. The section he criticized was removed. — goethean ॐ 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

Aguinaldo was captured the day after his birthday. Insert? (Probably not.) Uthanc 13:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I was told that there never was a Philippine American War. A history teacher told me it was a "conflict". - Tohru 5:24 am October 16, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.210.236 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 7 says the present term is officially used by the U.S. now. Uthanc 04:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of unsourced edits

I've reverted some recent edits by Yan Fang ai Miley. See [Yan Fang ai Miley]

• the insertion of "seemingly have" is nonsense.
• the insertion of "(no one truly died of war, the surrender of the Spaniards was agreed upon on the morning of that day)" is refuted by this, which says: " The U.S. Asiatic Squadron under George Dewey was ordered to sail from its Hong Kong base to destroy the Spanish fleet then in the Philippines. In one morning the guns of Dewey's squadron completely destroyed the Spanish ships anchored in Manila Bay. The Spanish suffered 381 casualties, the Americans fewer than 10. Manila later surrendered and was occupied by U.S. troops in August. The battle established the U.S. as a major naval power."
• the insertion of "and it was merely hours before the Spaniards in Intramuros surrendered." would be interesting, if a supporting source had been provided.
• the insertion of "but instead of the expected Filipino flag, an American flag rose" needs amplification regarding whose expectations these were and how the expectations came about, and it needs a supporting source regarding the raising of the American flag.
• the bit about "and hence started the phase in which the Americans took away the rightfully deserved independence of the Filipinos." is WP:POV, and does not belong in this article. -- Boracay Bill 07:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this revision whole heartedly, nice catch User:Wtmitchell. Users, please source all additions. Travb (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

spurious reference

I removed a reference work entitled "Poetics/Politics: Radical Aesthetics for the Classroom", which does not appear to be related to the Philippine-American War. Surely given the strong reference list here, this can go. CAVincent (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparent error

Under Aguinaldo's exile and return, this article says: "On January 1, 1899, Aguinaldo was declared President of the Philippines — the first and only president of what would be later called the First Philippine Republic. He later organized a Congress at Malolos, Bulacan to draft a constitution." Cited in support of the second quoted sentence is the book: Agoncillo, Teodoro (1960), History of the Filipino People, ISBN 971-1024-15-2 (Eighth edition 1990).

However, the Malolos Congress article says that sessions were held on September 15, 1898 – November 13, 1899 and on February 4, 1899. If Aguinaldo was declared President on January 1, 1899 he could not have "later" organized the Malolos Congress which had already held a session by that date.

Also, under Malos Constitution, the Malolos Congress article shows the following table:

Malolos Constitution	Enactment	Ratification
Approval	September 15, 1898	November 29, 1898
Ratification	November 29, 1898	January 21, 1899

This is clearly at variance with the assertion that Aguinaldo organized the Malolos Congress to draft a constitution sometime after assuming the presidency on January 1, 1899.

I don't have access to the cited book by Agoncillo, nor to another book by him titled Malolos: The crisis of the republic. Could someone who does have access to these books please correct the apparent error here? -- Boracay Bill 23:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, if someone does crack the books, page-number info on the cites which lack this would be useful. -- Boracay Bill —Preceding comment was added at 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I might have that book, but I will have to find it. In the meantime, ask TheCoffee since he's the one who used the Agoncillo book for History of the Philippines. But I think he's still in the U.S. so he might not have access to the book, either. --seav 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from American Empire

I moved this information from American Empire, it is clearly meant to be here, not there. If anyone wants to integrate this into the article, please do. :

A leader and founding member of the League was Mark Twain, who defended its views in the following manner: “ I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. ” — Mark Twain, New York Herald, Oct. 15, 1900. On January 20, 1899, President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), a five-person group headed by Dr. Jacob Schurman, president of Cornell University, to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations. In the report that they issued to the president the following year, the commissioners acknowledged Filipino aspirations for independence; they declared, however, that the Philippines was not ready for it. Specific recommendations included the establishment of civilian government as rapidly as possible (the American chief executive in the islands at that time was the military governor), including establishment of a bicameral legislature, autonomous governments on the provincial and municipal levels, and a system of free public elementary schools. The Second Philippine Commission (the Taft Commission), appointed by McKinley on March 16, 1900, and headed by William Howard Taft, was granted legislative as well as limited executive powers. Between September 1900 and August 1902, it issued 499 laws. A judicial system was established, including a Supreme Court, and a legal code was drawn up to replace antiquated Spanish ordinances. A civil service was organized. The 1901 municipal code provided for popularly elected presidents, vice presidents, and councilors to serve on municipal boards. The municipal board members were responsible for collecting taxes, maintaining municipal properties, and undertaking necessary construction projects; they also elected provincial governors. In July 1901 the Philippine Constabulary was organized as an archipelago-wide police force to control brigandage and deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement. After military rule was terminated on July 4, 1901, the Philippine Constabulary gradually took over from United States army units the responsibility for suppressing guerrilla and bandit activities. From the very beginning, United States presidents and their representatives in the islands defined their colonial mission as tutelage: preparing the Philippines for eventual independence. Except for a small group of "retentionists," the issue was not whether the Philippines would be granted self-rule, but when and under what conditions. Thus political development in the islands was rapid and particularly impressive in light of the complete lack of representative institutions under the Spanish. The Philippine Organic Act of July 1902 stipulated that, with the achievement of peace, a legislature would be established composed of a lower house, the Philippine Assembly, which would be popularly elected, and an upper house consisting of the Philippine Commission, which was to be appointed by the president of the United States. The Jones Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1916 to serve as the new organic law in the Philippines, promised eventual independence and instituted an elected Philippine senate. The Tydings-McDuffie Act (officially the Philippine Independence Act; Public Law 73-127) approved on March 24, 1934 provided for self-government of the Philippines and for Filipino independence (from the United States) after a period of ten years. World War II intervened, bringing the Japanese occupation between 1941 and 1945. In 1946, the Treaty of Manila (1946) between the governments of the U.S. and the Republic of the Philippines provided for the recognition of the independence of the Republic of the Philippines and the relinquishment of American sovereignty over the Philippine Islands.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First shots

Isn't it universally accepted that the Grayson incident started the fighting? I removed "one common view..." And shouldn't "Silencio Street" be "San Juan Bridge"? Revisionist scholarship, I guess... Also, why was the "Filipino collaboration with America" section removed? I thought it balanced out "American opposition to the war". Uthanc (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "universally accepted" is true for the Filipino universe. I've been trying to confirm this independently and have had problems finding sources (I'm working from Boracay island, and am limited to online sources and what books I happen to personally have handy). The incident occurred on 4 Feb 1899. Dean Worcester's detailed history written in 1914 mentions it, but does not name Grayson. I'm particularly interested in where and when the first mention of Grayson's name appeared, and what supporting sources there were for mentioning him, and I have not been able to track that down.

You can see what I've been able to find so far here.

Also, the location of the incident has recently been revised. see this.

I've recently been doing some heavy editing to the History of the Philippines (1898–1946) article, which has some info related to this. You might want to take a look at that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Muslims???

Can someone please explain to me why: "During this conflict, the Americans realized a need to be able to stop a charging tribesman with a single shot. To fill this need, the M1911 pistol was later developed using larger caliber ammunition (.45 ACP), resulting in additional stopping power. In the interim the older Colt Single Action Army in .45 Colt was re-issued." is found under the subject Muslims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.46.33 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't explain it. I've tagged it {{off-topic-other|M1911 pistol}} -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Moros (Muslims) the Americans encountered during the Moro uprising (generally considered a part of the Philippine-American War) would often practice what is known as juramentado. A male Moro would shave all hair from his body, wear nothing but a loin-cloth, tie twine around the upper arms and legs (to cut off blood circulation and numb the pain of wounds) and have his undertaking blessed by an imam. He would then run amok, attacking an American unit, trying to kill as many soldiers as he could before being gunned down. The Americans found out that the .38 caliber revolver they carried did not have the stopping power to immediately kill an attacking juramentado. This was allegedly the impetus for the design of the more powerful .45 caliber model 1911 Colt pistol and the adoption of its larger bore round. — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Feedback 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to Philippine Insurrection

This article was unilaterally moved to Philippine Insurrection (which originally redirected here) without any prior discussion or consensus by Dcfowler1. Since this is a very controversial move I've undone it and ask anyone else contemplating such a move to please raise it first here and with the relevant wikiprojects before doing so. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Too long?

Please do not shorten this article any further…I was able to get a very good understanding of the subject and found the section titles helped me zero in on areas of interest. I do not believe that anyone is well served when things are “condensed”, and have found that such logic is usually a cover for an attempt to remove or hide information that may not conform to a persons pre-conceived beliefs or world view…please do not edit out things you do not personally agree with, lets stick with the facts and with as many of them as possible. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.163.203 (talk • contribs)

Indeed the article is too long by Wikipedia standards; however, do date no one found the time to trim it down. Trimming down the article does not necessarily entail "hiding" information and responsible editors see to it that the article's point of view remains neutral. The tag is there purely for the editor as a marker for future enhancement; it is not there for the reader's benefit. Read WP:Article size for further information. Meanwhile, we are glad you have had "a good understanding of the subject". Cheers. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 04:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Gavan McCormack

I have removed the paragraph mentioning, Gavan McCormack,[6] (under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), because it is a claim made in an unreliable source [7]. The book mentioned is "The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective" is available under Google Books and the preview text available is extensive see this search.

Further the paragraph as it stands is a copy violation of the web source which probably originates here.

AFAICT no mention is made of the assertion in the book preview. Now it may be available, but I think this paragraph should not be reinstated unless the assertion can be verified in "The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective" citing the page number and a quote of the relevant sentences on this talk page to make sure that there is no understanding. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

E. San Juan, Jr.

AFAICT this article is the original article by E. San Juan, Jr. It contains the statement "The goal of all colonialism is the cultural and social death of the conquered natives, in effect, genocide."

See genocide definitions

While there are various definitions of the term, Adam Jones, has written that the majority of genocide scholars consider that "intent to destroy" is a requirement for any act to be labelled genocide, and that there is growing agreement on the inclusion of the physical destruction criterion.

See also the European Court of Human Rights summary of the International Court of Justice ruling in the Bosnian Genocide Case:

In the case of Prosecutor v. Krstic (2 August 2001), the ICTY ruled "customary international law limits the definition of genocide to those acts seeking the physical or biological destruction of all or part of the group. Hence, an enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group in order to annihilate these elements which give to that group its own identity distinct from the rest of the community would not fall under the definition of genocide. (Bosnian Genocide#European Court of Human Rights)

So the view by E. San Juan, Jr. is very much a minority view and to include a paragraph based on this theory is to give WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe theory. If it is not a fringe theory it should be easy to find genocide scholars who subscribe to the theory that "The goal of all colonialism is the cultural and social death of the conquered natives, in effect, genocide." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear that the actions of the US in the Philippines involved the physical destruction of Filipinos, destruction clearly done with "intent to destroy" (Jones) it therefore went far beyond merely "an enterprise attacking only the cultural or sociological characteristics of a human group" (ICTY). (You seem to read your chosen sources and/or the facts in a strange way.) It was a policy of murder intended to allow the US to impose its rule on a subjugated Philippines. Filipinos stood in the way of that goal and hundreds of thousands directly, 1-1.5 million in total, were killed to make it possible. This case seems quite as arguable as other cases of genocide put forward. Conquest involving killing as many indigenous people as is required to achieve that conquest can be genocide surely. Doing it in the name of conquest does not palliate the crime. I hope other editors will add depth to the discussion bringing in other sources. (And of course the precise figures are always going to be a matter of argument.) Jagdfeld (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"policy of murder intended to allow the US to impose its rule on a subjugated Philippines" is not genocide. To be genocide it has to be the intention to destroy and the physical destruction (of a significant part) of one of the protected groups. But it does not matter what you and I think. Do you have any sources stating that other scholars who agree with E. San Juan, Jr. that "The goal of all colonialism is the cultural and social death of the conquered natives, in effect, genocide." If not then this is a fringe view and we should not give it WP:UNDUE weight. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no reply to my last comment I am removing the paragraph. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that was how it worked - last editor to reply has carte blanche. The genocide provisions have precious little case law. It seems premature on your part to use "scholar's opinions" or obiter dicta to rule out discussion. It seems entirely appropriate to include references to the allegation in the articles. I have added another quotation from an eye witness to show that what went on was not a limited war but the "extermination" of men, women, and children. You are free to qualify the matter ("a minority view") as you think fair and appropriate. Erasure does not seem appropriate. Jagdfeld (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

<--outdent. It is not a matter of the last editor having a cart blanche, it is attempting to reach a understanding and hence a consensus through dialogue. This is NOT a discussion about whether the nasty things that happened. It is a discussion if those nasty things were a genocide. As to adding a comment about it being a minority view, that is not necessary the text can stand as testament to that. This is about this view being a WP:FRINGE view. You have yet to produce another scholar who states that it was genocide. So currently it is a WP:FRINGE view and unless you can come up with some reliable sources that agree with E. San Juan, Jr. Wikipedia should have paragraph on his opinions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this is a fringe view and should not be included. If it is not, there should be no trouble finding reliable sources which say that there was genocidal intent. Even if editors can make a good argument that the circumstances constituted genocide, that is not sufficient. Personal opinion, OR and SYN are not enough. If there is only one questionable source that says so, it does not belong in the article. Even if it in fact was genocide but the proposition is so novel that only one source can be found, it would still not belong and would still be fringe (the policy re fringe theories specifically lists "novel re-interpretations of history" as an example). An encyclopedia is not a place for novel academic theories. Mamalujo (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Scholar" is a very spurious category. It seems wide open to abuse - used as a way to stifle debate and "define away" anyone whose work we don't like. Respect for facts should come first. We can all interpret. Gore Vidal is a historian (specifically of US history) whose views are worthy of as much respect as someone we have never heard of. He agrees with E. San Juan's conclusion. I think the onus is on producing someone who argues the opposite case. That would be the most enlightening thing.What is genocide? "Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Was the Philippines campaign an accident?

"In Manila, a U.S. Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony:"The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied 'Everything over ten."

"Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses."

How many hundreds of thousands? Something dark was going on. Jagdfeld (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

One can replace scholar with historian, or genocide scholar, but using the word scholar leaves it open to including view from other people who can be considered reliable sources such as legal scholars.

I personally think you, Jagdfeld, would benefit from reading the ICTY and ICJ judgements, as your interpretations of the CPPCG are at variance with their interpretation. However that is not the point, because what you are engaged in here is WP:OR, the primary sources you are quoting are not open to us to interpret (see WP:PSTS). What are needed are reliable secondary sources that interpret primary sources and conclude that genocide took place. You write that "Gore Vidal is a historian (specifically of US history) whose views are worthy of as much respect as someone we have never heard of. He agrees with E. San Juan's conclusion." In which publication did Gore Vidal make these assertions? Please quote a couple of relevant sentences from the publication on why the thinks this was a genocide. A letter ( [Death in the Philippines New York Review of Books Volume 28, Number 20 · December 17, 1981) suggests that he made his initial estimate of on the deaths of 3,000,000 which was wrong and should have been 300,000. In the letter he still claims it was a genocide, but he does not explain how he reaches that conclusion (here is another letter from the same exchange). However I think that although the two views are still a minority the view can not so easily be dismissed as a fringe view. But the views of the scholars who disagree should also be included in the paragraph (WP:NPOV). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see added the views of scholars who disagree. That seems to me to be the rational/civilized/scholarly/enlightened/enlightening way to deal with questions/accusations. Rebuttal is more effective than suppression. Reading this article on Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554053/Genocide.html), it did seem that an argument could be made that events in the Philippines could take their place there without seeming at all out of place. Jagdfeld (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Php bill 5 back.jpg

The image Image:Php bill 5 back.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

can anyone fix this article?

background section need to be re-written.

The introductory background section dabble too much on "Philippine revolution".
Cut it down to a few paragraphs and make it strait to the point.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.32.100 (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

suggestion: weapons of the philippine american war

I suggest we create a template similar to:

listing the weapons and equipment of the US and Philippines. From what ive gather the Us used colt 1911, Springfield .45 1866, Krag, elephant guns, .38 pistol, machine guns and cannons. Philippines used Remington and Mauser.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.40.251 (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ratio of Filipinos wounded

It's plagarism from the source the paragraph cites.--droptone (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I happened to be browsing this article (which has quite a few of my edits in it, but to which I have not paid close attention) and talk page, and saw the above. I don't follow the gist of your complaint. Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. "plagarism from the source the paragraph cites" is an apparent oxymoron. That aside, can you explain the problem you perceive in a bit more detail? To what specific assertion in the article do you refer? To what cited source do you refer? -- Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

second para of the lead neads rewriting

I am traveling and will be on the road for the next several weeks, so I am not in a position to address this right now. The para in question reads:

After the Treaty of Paris, the United States armed forces, led by William McKinley, along with the Philippine Constabulary and the Philippine Scouts, were sent to occupy the islands. The struggle officially ended on July 4, 1902, however, remnants of the Katipunan and other resistance groups, such as the Pulajanes and the Moro, continued hostilities until 1913.

References

1. US Armed forces had been in the Philippines for some months by the time of the signing of the Treaty of Paris, under the command of Admiral Dewey and Generals Merritt, Otis, and MacArthur.
2. McKinley, as US President, was Commander in Chief of the US Military but he did not "lead" the forces deployed to the Philippines by any sensible definition of that term.
3. Neither the nor the Philippine Constabulary and the Philippine Scouts, were sent to occupy the islands. Without checking references, I doubt that either of these two organizations existed at the time.
4. I have not checked the cited sources (I am in an internet cafe and am presently without easy access to reference materials), but I doubt that they support the assertions made here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Massacres Occur?

I removed the following addition:

The change in total population of the Philippine Islands during the war years is difficult to determine. In 1899 Father Algué reported there were 6,703,311 people, and he probably did not include "wild people". The 1903 census, excluding "wild people", showed 6,987,686 people. This increase of 284,375, or 4.24% during 4 years of war, makes mass deaths questionable.

It is original research for a wikipedia editor to draw their own conclusion (bold print above) from census statistics. If a reliable source has looked at the same figures and drawn that conclusion then an appropriate footnote should be provided. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Possibly War-Related Deaths in the Philippines, 1898-1902, John M. Gates, The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Aug., 1984), pp. 367-378 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3639234 might serve. Not being able to access the complete article myself, I'm not sure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I was able to access the article (which is already used as a source in the section on casualties). Gates does use census figures, but spends a great deal of time explaining why they are not totally reliable. He does, however, make the comparison between 1898 numbers and 1903 numbers. Using various possible expected annual growth rates from 1.2% to 1.86% Gates estimates that the "shortfall" in the population was from 127,593 to 362,654. His conclusion after discussing numerous factors is:

This paper provides neither a reliable method for estimating war-related deaths in the Philippine-American War nor an exact estimate of their. number. It does, however, indicate a few of the approaches that should not be used. One should not rely upon off-the-cuff remarks of witnesses, such as General James M. Bell, who were not in a position to speak authoritatively, and one should not trust the undocumented figures of authors who have an ulterior motive, such as proving that the American campaign in the Philippines was "genocidal" or benevolent. Finally, one should never give credence to the results of sloppy scholarship. Until reliable methods of investigation and the estimates which they may produce become available, scholarship will best be served by authors who make judicious estimates or leave the question of war-related deaths unanswered and open to further investigation. The primary aim here is to encourage a more systematic look at the cost, in human life, of the Philippine-American War.

Gates' approach does not support the material that I removed in either the way the census numbers were used or in the conclusion drawn. I think the existing article already makes the case that the actual number of deaths is in dispute. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Flag

As has been discussed in earlier threads on this talk page, there have been numerous comments about this article being written with a very strong pro-RP, anti-US, possibly historic revisionist POV. So far I have not seen any remedy to this MAJOR issue. Unless I here otherwise, i.e. opposition, I will flag this article at the top stating that it needs POV clean up. If there is opposition I would like to know the opponents reasoning as why this article does not have a strong POV. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, the clean up template has been placed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What particular bits of this article raise your POV concerns? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that there have been several POV questions were brought up in the past. After reading those concerns and reading over the article, the POV of the article remains, as well as some of the bias nature of the references provided. I am not saying that those references are not reliable, as they clearly are, and I am not saying that the POV of those references are not without their own merit. However, this article lacks significant references from the opposing party, and thus is written in a way that validates the bias of the references used. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I simply want to echo Bill's previous query; what are the exact points you wish addressed for POV concerns? — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 03:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just echoing concerns brought up by Wtmitchell himself in 2007. Those issues still remain. I am not saying that the POV being espoused in this article isn't without its own merit, but not providing significant opposing view, or a complete neutral POV, this article comes off as strongly biased towards a pro-first republic, anti-U.S. telling of the event. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

From the essay that the template you added refers to:

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

I don’t believe that you have complied with the above. Which sections of the article are you talking about -- the vast majority of the 27 sections or subsections seem to be simply straight forward representations of facts? You make reference to an “anti-US” bias and say “this article lacks significant references from the opposing party.” Of course the opposition to the conduct of the war came largely from Americans like Andew Carnegie, Mark Twain, William Jennings Bryan, etc-- it is not “anti-US” but anti-US policy at a given point in history. Who exactly is the “opposing party” and what does this party have to say, through reliable sources, that is not already in the article?

Without some substantive response from you, it appears that the template should be removed.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 14:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated the references provided in large part are biased against US actions of the conflict itself, or are pro First Republic. There are few references that are either pro US actions or maintain a NPOV themselves. There are books that are given as additional reading that are not referenced in line, such as Linn's book Philippine American War[8], which I find as the most neutral of all text that I have read on the conflict, however that information is not as I had stated referenced in this article. Rather as indicated in previous discussions about POV in this article in the past, this article cites from references that have a clear POV themselves, therefore the wording of the text taken from that information contain their own bias in how they are written. That issue dating as far back as at least 2007 have not been improved or fixed. Again, after reading the previous POV discussions, and seeing that they have not been addressed, I am surprised that a flag was not placed within the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) And yet again you avoid specifics. You seem to be saying that almost anything currently referenced is biased (there are over 100 footnotes) even though you had admitted earlier that they are all reliable sources. Your only suggestion to resolve it seems to be to get Linn's book and rewrite the article based on it. I went through the discussion page from 2007 to the present looking for specific POV issues to address and couldn’t find much of anything -- certainly nothing to label the entire article as NPOV.

I note that in October of 2007 there was an objection raised to genocide being in the lede to the article -- it was removed on October 11 by this edit [9] and placed in another section. Do you want to eliminate it entirely? I personally would, but there was a discussion in 2008 that led nowhere -- I can see tagging that section alone, assuming of course that there will be an actual discussion of that issue. Heck, if you want to be bold and delete it and provide a rationale on this discussion page I will support you -- it seems fringe to me and detracts from the actual atrocities that did occur.

I see there is a discussion of colonization at “Colonization/annexation/control” -- do you wish to revisit this? Seems pretty trivial to me. I also note that Linn in the first paragraph of chapter 6 shows Otis referring to “American colonial rule.”

There is a complaint in August of 2007 in the section titled “POV” about a picture of a massacre -- as far as I can tell that picture is no longer there. Do you have a problem with a picture?

I see a section called “POV Issues” but it is just as non-specific as your edits.

Problems with “First shots of the war”? If so, what should it say? I see in a later section titled “First shots” that in March 2008 an editor is looking for contrary sources. He apparently didn’t find any. Do you have a reliable source that says something different? If so, add it. as it stands, it seems to be based on a combination of US and “other” sources -- I find a very similar account in David Hayward Bain’s “Sitting in Darkness” (pp. 184-184). If you want to add something from Linn saying that the war, in his estimate, would have started anyway, then do it although the article doesn’t really say anything different. Again, this may be a reason to tag one section, but not the entire article.

I would have thought that any controversy would be over the various references to atrocities (other than genocide), but it seems very clear that they did occur and I see no discussion of them as being biased. Linn admits they occurred. I do note that there seems to be little in the article that contrasts official American intentions and policy with abuses committed by individuals, but I don’t see where that has been mentioned in the discussions. It seems to me that this is the only significant POV issue and could be quickly resolved. In any event, I am removing the template, as i said earlier, since you have failed to meet the requirement to tell us specifically what the problems are so that they can be discussed and/or corrected.

You originally asked, before you placed the tag, whether there were any objections, but unfortunately you only waited 30 hours before adng the tag. Since three people have asked you to clarify where the POV problem is, I hope you start discussing it rather than edit warring over the template. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of something that I have not done, nor plan to do. I have stated my opinion on this article, and thought it necessary to flag it, giving time for people to object to said flagging prior to adding it.

Since there is consensus that this article is not deemed to have been written with a POV or bias, then per consensus the flag is rightly removed regardless of my opinion of how the article is written. Thank you for your time everyone; it looks like I will not get any change done here in regards to making this article closer to a NPOV. I may add information with reliable source references in the future, but for now I will spend my time elsewhere. Again, thank you for taking your time and at least discussing this issue which I see, even if you don't agree with my opinion that it's there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

200,000 to 1,500,000 civilian casualties, this is a lie and should be removed. Anti-American propaganda as usual. --Az81964444 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• No it's not, somewhere hiding in Wikipedia, there's a reliable source but I won't tell you where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.1.159 (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First Philippine Republic: Insurgent?

I've reverted this edit wherein an anon had reverted my re-insertion of the term "insurgent" to describe the First Philippine Republic, with an edit summary of "(Debatable, the Philippines, Spain, or the U.S. all sought sovereignty over the islands, and all three could have it or none, term rejected by Library of Congress)". I seek consensus on the question of whether or not the First Philippine Republic was insurgent.

According to the WP article, an Insurgency is is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognised as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognised as belligerents. I assert that

• Aguinaldo's resumption (under U.S. auspices) of the Philippine Revolution was an insurgency against Spain (actually the resumption of a previous insurgency);
• Aguinaldo's announcement on May 24, 1898, in the wake of his military victories, that he was assuming "command of all the troops in the struggle for the attainment of our lofty aspirations, inaugurating a dictatorial government to be administered by decrees promulgated under my sole responsibility..." and issuance a decree formally establishing a Dictatorial Government continued of that insurgency under a new name;
• Aguinaldo's issuance decree five days later, on June 23, replacing the Dictatorial Government with a Revolutionary Government continued that insurgency under a new name;
• The promulgation of the Malolos Constitution establishing the First Philippine republic on January 22, 1899 continued that insurgency under another name;
• The declaration of war against the United States on June 2, 1899, after sovereignty over the Philippines had passed from Spain to the U.S. under the Treaty of Paris (1898) continued or renewed the insurgency against the newly constituted authority.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.15.211 (talk • contribs) 15:55, November 3, 2009

Some relevant reading:

• The Historical Context and Legal Basis of the Philippine Treaty Limits by Lowell B. Bautista;
• Swan Sik Ko (1990), Swan Sik Ko (ed.), Nationality and international law in Asian perspective, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 339, ISBN 9780792308768;
• Arnold D. McNair (1932), Arnold D. McNair; H. Lauterpacht (eds.), International Law Reports, vol. 4, Cambridge University Press, pp. 103-107, ISBN 9780521463492;

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What you failed to mention is the lack of a constituted authority at that time. The Philippines was under a military government run by United States military, which meant that it was under occupation by an invading force rather than a an actual government. It was only after Aguinaldo's surrender when a legally functioning government was established under the Organic Act. Besides the Treaty of Paris is nowhere near at advocating the legitimacy of the American occupation, Spain heavily debated the inclusion of the Philippines and it was only passed in the U.S. Congress by one vote.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.15.211 (talk • contribs) 15:55, November 3, 2009

I see that the edit I spoke above of having reverted[10] was made on 2 Nov by 119.95.1.159, that a 3 November edit by 119.95.15.211 reverted my reversion[11], that a 3 November edit by 119.95.1.159 to another article related to the question of legitimacy of the First Philippine Republic as a sovereign state[12]. None of these edits, my own included, were supported by cited sources.

There seems to be a difference of editorial opinion between myself and some anonymous editors regarding the legitimacy of the First Philippine Republic as a sovereign state. Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, such a difference of opinion calls for citation of sources supporting one or both sides of the question (if both sides can be supported, both need to be mentioned, with supporting sources cited. If only one side can be supported, only the side which can be supported need be mentioned but sources should still be cited. The sources I have listed above, I think, support the position that the 1stPR was an insurgent entity. I will look for sources which support that position more directly. Can you cite sources which support the position that the 1stPR was a legitimate sovereign state?.

Considering this back&forth regarding this (and considering that I think I've been over this ground at least once in the past), it seems to me that the question needs to be expounded upon in the First Philippine Republic article, and perhaps should be mentioned in the History of the Philippines (1898-1946) article, with citation of supporting sources. Other articles (e.g., one should take their cue from the discussion to be inserted in the 1stPR article.

I'm pretty busy with other things at the moment, but I'll try to get around to doing something along that line. Towards that end, I would appreciate your citing any reliable sources you can turn up supporting the assertion that the 1stPR was a legitimate sovereign state (my guess is that such sources do exist, though I've never seen any).

If anyone has alternative suggestions about where to go from here, please speak up. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(added) I've put together a narrative of the relevant history focused on sovereignty issues, with supporting cites. That is currently located at User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox(see below and the Sovereignty of the Philippines article).

I was unable to find a citeable source supporting the assertion that the First Philippine republic was a legitimate sovereign state (that surprised me, and I'm guessing that citeable sources on that do exist somewhere), however I did find an RP Government source which describes the Katipunan under Bonifacio (see Tagalog Republic#Bonifacio) as the First Filipino Government, asserting, "From 24 August 1896, the Katipunan became an open de facto government." I infer from that that a position that whenever a group of people got together around a table and declared themselves to be a government that that group thereby became a legitimate sovereign state—a position which I find ludicrous, but one which would assert legitimacy regarding Aguinaldo's various proclaimed Philippine governments.

I would appreciate interested parties reading over what I have put together and (1) commenting on it and (2) making suggestions about how it ought to be changed and where it might fit into the WP articles on the Philippines. I'm doubtful that it would work as a starting point for a standalone article, but it's not clear to me where it might fit as a new section in an existing article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(added) Having received no feedback and seen no objection, I have reorganized the sandbox material into a new stub article named Sovereignty of the Philippines. I chose the name by following the examples of the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

War end date in the infobox

I don't want to get into an edit war here, so I'm bringing the issue to the talk page. I'm of the opinion that the end date in the infobox should be July 4, 1902, the official end of the war. However, the opposing opinion is that the date should be June 15, 1913, when all hostilities (unofficial or otherwise) ended. While I agree that the extended hostilities are important, they are best discussed elsewhere in the article (which they are). The infobox should contain official dates first and foremost. What does everyone think? --clpo13_(talk) 22:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Not only are the extended hostilites discussed elsewhere but there is also a clarifying note in the infobox itself. I have restored the official date. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Even though the war "officially" ended on July 4, 1902, hostilities toward the U.S. military persisted until June 15, 1913. Leaving that out of the infobox is misleading. B-Machine (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it's already in the infobox. Notice that right after the dates there is the letter [a] which, when you click on it, leads you to the bottom of the infobox where it says, "July 4, 1902 is the official ending date of the war, though the Moro, the Pulahanes, the remnants of the Katipunan, and the Tagalog Republic, continued hostilities until June 15, 1913." Nobody is being mislead about anything. If you have a better suggestion on how to include the SAME information, then present it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

War end date in the infobox

In most Philippine history books I've read, I have never encountered the mulim wars in the south as part of the Philippine-American War. Was there ever even communication between the First Philippine Republic and the Sultans of Mindanao and Sulu? Was there a joint strategy of some sort? I do believe the muslim wars in the south are a different indentity from that of the Philippine-American War. Unless this is move in relation to the current Philippine government's initiative to keep Mindanao and its people Filipinos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.124.138 (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed the heading for the "War Crimes" section

I changed the heading of the "War Crimes" section to "Atrocities" in view of the fact that the term War Crime has a special and technical meaning in international law, which includes among others the element of mens rea or "intent" (e.g. intent to wipe-out a particular population or ethnic group). No historical evidence can be presented to prove such an "intent". Absent any credible historical evidence or ruling from an international court that the parties in this conflict had such an "intent" (e.g. intent to exterminate the Filipino or American race), the use of the term War Crime is highly improper. Thinkinggecko (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)