Talk:Philippine–American War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Philippinean War of Independence

Why this article is named "Philippine-American War" instead of "Philippinean War of Independence"? Per the War of Independence article this war obviously is an independence war. Refusing to call it in independence war because the US are involved is non neutral. I vote for renaming it to its real name "Philippinean War of Independence". Shame On You 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Philippinean War of Independence is unknown--in fact this is the first time I heard it. As per footnote 2:
  This conflict is also known as the 'Philippine Insurrection'. This name was historically the most commonly used in the U.S., but Filipinos and some American historians refer to these hostilities as the Philippine-American War, and in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term. Travb (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"U.S. Library of Congress"? What a lame excuse, and what about the Philippinean? The "Algerian War of Independence" is actually named "Algeria War" in France who are the first concerned with the Algerian. Naming a conflict from one or another way clearly indicates a point of view. It's like naming "resistant" or "rebel", "guerrilla" or "terrorist". What the US name "Vietnam War" is named "Vietnam War of Independence" by the Vietnamese. According to chaotic nipple, since the Vietnamese won... this conflict should be named correctly... if you know what I mean :) Neutrality? Don't make me laugh, it's like this Japanese war crimes, there is no such article for the US nor the UK... but what about Hirishima/Nagasaki and Dresden? Shame On You 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

For it to count as a war of independence, I'm pretty sure the would-be independents have to actually win. :-) Chaotic nipple 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No it has nothing to do! War is war, the Vietnamese won their independence but the Americans don't recognize it... Shame On You 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Philippine War of Independence" is the Philippine Revolution against Spain, since we did declare independence in 1898 before this war took place. Uthanc 21:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't knew that. It was just to talk about (and invite to think about) neutrality with my english-speaking friends...... :) Shame On You 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

my "lame excuse" is evidence, supported by facual documents, if my evidence is "lame" what does that make your unsupported suggestion? Please refrain from attacking other peoples views and ideas. Travb (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aguinaldo's legitimacy is key to what you would call this war. After the death of Bonifacio it's difficult to believe he was anything better than a warlord. Whatever banner you want to raise, finding the facts behind the foundation of this historically muddled story is more important than bashing each other with your ideological preferences. You sound like you want to re-write history, instead of reporting it. Just the same as in Cebu, now, each year, there's a celebration for King Lapu-Lapu, the great warrior that in defending his turf gets credit for killing the first man to circumnavigate the earth. Some accomplishment, huh? Try making peace, and see if you can find the facts worth reading. 203.87.178.16 (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation

It is my opinion that the order in which the information is presented currently is not logical; without changing any actual information, I am going to merge the 'origins' section into the 'war begins' section, which will be made into a level two headline. This will present the facts of the war in chronological order, and increase the readability of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.22.214 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Colonization/annexation/control

I've changed the result back to colonization because in the context of what the U.S. intended to do and did, the Philippines was for all intents and purposes a colony. "Annexation" and "control" don't convey this sense as well as both were aspects of the colonization process. Check out the colonialism article if you don't think that this applies to the Philippines under the U.S. and consider that at the time, (and even now by some sources), the war was considered an insurrection. This wouldn't be the case if it wasn't considered American territory at the time that the fighting started because Spain ceded it to the U.S. After acquiring the former Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam in 1898, the U.S. was considered to have made its entrance onto the imperialist stage. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The US never colonised the Phillipines. The Phillipines are just as Fillipino today as they were before the American control. Colonialism and colonisation are very different concepts.--Josquius 11:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your second statement is blatantly untrue and you are ignoring the massive impact that the US had on the Philippines. There was no wide scale American immigration to the islands except for officials, administrators, and military, but unless you have been there yourself, you are denying the widespread use of English as both an official language and locally and the establishment of American institutions such as form of government and education that are still there to this day, just to give an example of the American impact. If you can think of a better way to express "the extension of American colonialism over the Philippines" instead of using the term colonization, then let's hear it, but until then, colonization is still better than annexation or control. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My statement is entirely true. Moving your people into a new land and ruling over the existing people in a land are totally different concepts. Colonisation is a really wrong phrase here as it implies the Americans did to the Phillipines what they did to the various Native American nations when the truth was qutie different.--Josquius 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming that you're referring to your first statement and not the second one. If you are, I am not understanding from where you are deriving this belief that "The Phillipines are just as Fillipino today as they were before the American control" and have to question whether you have even been there in order to even have a sense of the many ways that Filipino culture and society have been impacted by the US.

Now going back to your first point. The closest example that I can think of in terms of how the Philippines was treated, i.e. no large scale migration of citizens from the colonizing power is India, so I'm wondering how you would define what the British did there and if this case qualifies as "colonization" as you seem to be interpreting it. I've asked the editors at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines if they can comment on use of a term to describe the war's result as well. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The mere widespread use in Philippine society of "colonial mentality", which in Philippine context is the love or appreciation of things or products that come from America over Filipino-made goods, is evident of the fact that the United States colonized the Philippines. For all intents and purposes, when America bought the Philippines from Spain (Treaty of Paris), the Philippines became a colony of the US even if you say only for a short time (it's arguable whether America brought democracy or liberation to the Philippines versus colonizing it). Berserkerz Crit 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that widespread immigration to a colony is considered a factor in whether or not a country was indeed colonized. While this may be true for the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the mere presence of a large number of citizens from the former colonizing power is not a factor at all. Consider the context of Africa as an example. --Sky Harbor 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Phillipines society being impacted by the US is irrelevant and absolutely nothing to do with what I've been saying. You seem to be totally misunderstanding where I'm coming from here, I don't disbelieve that the US ruled over the Phillipines in a colonial way or whatever- I object to the term colonised purely from a linguistic angle. The Phillipines was a 'colony' of the US- that is true. That the Phillipines was made a colony via 'colonisation' however- that is untrue. Colonisation is just one way to make a colony and it means settling foreign lands. Colonies in the 19th/20th century imperial sense can also be gained through other means such as in this case- military conquest of the Phillipines.--Josquius 10:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe annexation would suffice to convey what you have conceded. And if technically speaking we would strictly consider the word colonization, then you are right. But the colonization article and word implies different meanings of the term colonization. And in this article's context, the meaning relevant is that of Colonialism, which if you read and understand clearly applies to what America did to the Philippines, thus colonization is a valid and better representation than annexation. Berserkerz Crit 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The colonisation article makes it somewhat clear (not the clearest it could...) that this would not be an example of colonisation. America conquered the Phillipines, they didn't settle them in any worthwhile numbers. --Josquius 19:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, per colonization and Sky Harbor and Broken Sphere, settlement of a critical size is not the only criterion of colonization. Berserkerz Crit 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate illuminates how Filipino-centric the viewpoint of this article is. At the time of the war, people were emigrating to the US, and not away, certainly not to the Philippines. No colonization took place. It's a big misnomer. America's entry into Imperialism was the Spanish American War, and America became the government of the Philippines as a result. Resistance was quashed. Whether there was good intention in the governing or bad, let that be measured in another article. Look at what the war was about, who fought in it, and what they believed was unifying them. Remember that the Philippines was always fragmented. If the Filipinos fighting in that war had won, would they have been able to unify the Philippines? A huge assumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.178.16 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"(disputed)" removed from Philippine casualty figures

I've removed "(disputed)" from the assertion reading "up to 1,000,000 Philippine civilians killed" in the infobox.

Two sources are cited in support of this. The infobox asserts that the sources cited support the statement, not that the statement is factual (see WP:V).

The first cite is of this source, which gives figures of 20,000 filipino military dead and 200,000 filipino civilian dead; that ref went on to cite Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and I have removed that.

The second source cited is this article, the full text of which is not available online without a subscription but which gives information about a cholera epidemic in the Philippines in 1902-1904.

Additionally, this source puts the number of civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands; this source estimates 250,000; this source estimates civilian casualties from 250,000 to 1,000,000, largely due to famine and disease. I've added that last-mentioned source as a third cited supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to these two references below, the total number of casualties on the Filipino side were of more than one million dead, many of them civilians.

RafaelMinuesa (talk)

So, we have several sources, which I'm presuming for purposes of this comment to be of similar reliability and to be similarly prominent. Please read WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hart's Fabulous Class Project

Greetings!!

The following post is coming from Doctor Dennis Hart’s American Wars in Asia class at the University of Pittsburgh.

With the semester winding down and the fabulous class project due in less then 48 hours we thought it important to inform the realm of Wikipedia that some major changes are about to happen. Or at least one major change. At the beginning of the semester the class was given the ability to choose its final project. Without getting into the specifics the class decided on editing/re-writing an existing Wikipedia article. As you should have guessed by now the class chose the Philippine-American article.

The rising popularity of Wikipedia in the last decade has sparked an unknown phenomenon. Wikipedia serves as an easily accessible history tool, meant to objectively inform the public about current and historical events. However, many authors fail to uphold their end of the bargain; they tend to provide wiki-readers with narrow/subjective accounts of whatever it is they are writing about. If you need an example, please scroll down and read the title of section 2, “War against the United States.” The phrase “war against” conveys a sense of negativity, giving the reader the assumption the Philippines were the perpetrators (which turns out not to be the case, but you’ll have to read the article for more on this). With the title conveying such an extreme sense of subjectivity can you imagine what the rest of the article is like?

No need to worry, Professor Hart’s wiki-guerrillas are here. Several of the assigned readings in class sparked a series of class debates. These readings discussed the logic and imperatives of US hegemony and the correlation between national memory and state discourses; one such article having been written by John Bodnar (check key bibliographic sources below). The argument Bodnar posits is that bureaucracies “attempt to advance these [societal] concerns by promoting interpretations of past and present reality that reduce the power of competing interests that threaten the attainment of their goals.” In lamest terms, Bodnar argues politicians use current and historical events to manipulate the public into subservience. Sounds crazy doesn’t it? Well, peep this. Look up the Wikipedia article on Andrew Jackson. It makes no mention of the laws Jackson passed that did away with the Native American tribe as a legal unit, outlawed tribal leaders, took away the chiefs’ powers, made Indians subject to taxes, and denied them the right to vote (Read Howard Zinn article for more). Even more basic, why is the American involvement on Korea traditionally believed to have begun in 1950? Conducting a little research and you find the United States had troops in South Korea in 1945. And that’s just two quick answers, think of what we uncovered in the course of an entire semester.

Back to the matter at hand. In addition to the Bodnar article Pierre Nora sparked an interesting debate with her article (1989) discussing the connection between memory and history. Nora asserts “we have seen the tremendous dilation of our very mode of historical perception, which, with the help of the media, has substituted for a memory entwined in the intimacy of a collective heritage the ephemeral film of current events.” Because of the aforementioned entanglement Leslie Good suggests the process of communication of involves the prevention of certain statements from being made in public. This is issue we are dealing deal with, we need to expose alternative points of view, too many Americans are exposed to propagated news.

Take for example the US Security Strategy. The strategy outlines the goals of US foreign policy: 1) promote freedom, justice and human dignity 2) working to end tyranny 3) promote effective democracies 4) extend prosperity through free and fair trade and wise development policies. Nothing too surprising, pretty similar to the list the class came up with at the beginning of the semester. Well, as nice and pleasant as these goals may sound the actions undertaken by the US government prove otherwise (for more on this watch Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land). Having spent the past several months reading articles and engaging in class discussions we thought it appropriate to come up with a new list of US foreign policy goals (a little before and after if you will): 1) assumption of self-superiorty in dealing with foreign people 2) education ‘the other’ through process of dehumanization 3) manipulate exposed voices and 4) maintain US interests at no matter the cost. What led to such a drastic change? To gain a complete understanding you would have to sit through a semester with Professor Hart. However, we offer you a simpler solution - read the article, read some sources listed at the bottom of the page - by doing so you will have taken the first steps to exposing yourself to the realities of US hegemonic system.

So what are we trying to accomplish? For starters we hope all you Wiki-ites seek out alternative sources of information. Instead of picking up the New York Times and Wall Street Journal read al-Jazeera. Yes, that was the class’ initial thought as well. However, after reading it for the past several weeks we would have to say it often times provides better perspectives and historical accounts of events. Secondly, we want to make and reiterate the point that the absence of voices is just as important as the presence of voices. Just because certain viewpoints are presented does not mean they are the only viewpoints. Resultantly, it is the will of this class to project the voice of the Philippine sons, husbands, daughters, mothers, brothers, and sisters to the Wiki-public. We have spent a considerable amount of time on the article and believe it provides the reader with the best, most objective account this site has offered.

Let us know your thoughts.

Key bibliographic references

Bodnar, John. "Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century." Princeton University Press.

Jhally, Sut, and Bathsheba Ratzkoff. Peace, Propaganda & The Promised Land. DVD. Directed by Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk. Media Education Foundation, 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace,_Propaganda_&_the_Promised_Land

Lafeber, Walter. "The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad."

Miller, Stuart C. Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899- 1903. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.

Nora, Pierre. "Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire." University of California Press.

Stroessinger, John. "Crusaders and Pragmatists: Movers of Modern American Foreign Policy." Trinity University.

Zinn, Howard. "A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present." Perennial Classics.

i look forward to seeing what your class has to say. glad to see you participating at wikipedia. Hongkyongnae (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. Some cleanup done. more needed.

I noticed some problems with this article and have done cleanup work. My cleanup

• this edit inserted some text with an oddly styled attribution to a supporting source. The article content around that area has been massaged in subsequent edits. Someone might want to take a look at that; I'll probably take another look at this area at some point (I don't want to do it now because my reference books are currently packed for moving).
• this edit deleted some content around that area, and added a "American Atrocities Against Philippine Armed Forces" section with content apparently cut&pasted from elsewhere (complete with square-bracketed footnote numbers). I've deleted that added section with the cut&pasted content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Material from lead moved here

I've moved the following material which was added to the lead section in this edit here:

The American government had reassured the Filipino rebels that the U.S. was interested only in defeating Spain and, in the process, helping the Filipinos gain their independence. But after Spain was defeated, the United States turned against the Filipino rebels and took control of the Philippines, converting it into a US colony with the excuse that Filipinos were incapable of self-government. McKinley explained that "... there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and to uplift and civilize and Christianize them," in spite of the fact that the Philippines had been already Christianized for centuries.

The Treaty of Paris of 1898 between the United States and Spain following the United States' victory in the Spanish-American War was also cited by the invading forces as legal coverage for the annexation. The treaty stipulated that the United States could purchase the Philippines for $20 million, a controversial offer which was accepted by President McKinley despite the establishment of the First Philippine Republic.

The ref after the initial sentence was the only ref of that source, so I've also moved that from References to Further reading.

I haven't seen the cited source but, as is covered in some detail with supporting cites in History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#Did the U.S. promise independence?, that first sentence is at best an oversimplification. The first removed paragraph pushes a POV. The McKinley quote is supportable (see e.g., this) and (along with a number of other things which could be mentioned and supported) does make McKinley pretty clueless about the Philippines.

The second paragraph is factually incorrect. For more accurate info and supporting cites, see Treaty of Paris (1898)#Negotiations. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualties Section

I inserted a reference tag in the Casualties section for lack of verifiable citations. I invite any editor (particularly the one who inserted that section) to cite the sources from which those claims were taken. Otherwise, the whole section will have to be removed. If no action is taken within the next seven days, I'll be removing the entire section. Thinkinggecko (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no action has been taken to address the concern raised above, I am going to remove the entire section. Thinkinggecko (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article is extremely anti-american and a review should be initiated immediately. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

reality has a liberal bias.--BMF81 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Don't be ignorant. 74.212.17.148 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I sort of agree. I'm no American apologist, but honestly, this sentence strikes me as extraordinarily biased:

"The U.S. conquest of the Philippines has been described as a genocide, and resulted in the death of 1.4 million Filipinos (out of a total population of seven million)."

I write this as I recently happened upon this post by Max Boot:

I was pretty startled to read this. I have written a whole chapter on the war in my book, The Savage Wars of Peace, and I have never once heard that the U.S. was guilty of genocide. How could it have entirely escaped my attention?

There is, needless to say, not a scintilla of evidence that Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt made any attempt to wipe out the population of the Philippines. There is no doubt that a lot of Filipinos died in the course of the war, but most of those deaths were the result of disease, not American bullets. In my book, I cite the generally accepted casualty totals: 4,234 American dead and, on the other side, 16,000 Filipinos killed in battle and another 200,000 civilians killed mainly by disease and famine. My sources for these estimates are books written by William Thaddeus Sexton, an historian writing in the 1930’s, and two more recent accounts written by Stanley Karnow and Walter LaFeber. Neither Karnow nor LaFeber is exactly an American imperialist; in fact, both are well-known liberals. Yet their casualty counts are seven times lower than those claimed by Wikipedia, and they make no mention of any genocide.

this misunderstands what genocide is. Read e.g. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554053/Genocide.html Jagdfeld (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Where does the Wikipedia figure come from? The footnote refers to an online essay, “U.S. Genocide in the Philippines” by E. San Juan Jr., posted on an obscure website. The author is described as follows: “E. San Juan, Jr. was recently Fulbright Professor of American Studies at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, and visiting professor of literature and cultural studies at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, Republic of China.” Not exactly a pedigree that instantly screams out that he has any special expertise on the Philippine War.

In his short essay (1,046 words), E. San Juan Jr. concedes that his claims of genocide and of 1.4 million dead do not come from any mainstream sources. He writes: “Among historians, only Howard Zinn and Gabriel Kolko have dwelt on the ‘genocidal’ character of the catastrophe.” But even these ultra-left-wing “revisionist” historians (who also have no expertise in the Philippine War) have, in his telling, cited no more than 600,000 dead Filipinos.

So whence the figure of 1.4 million? According to Mr. San Juan, “The first Filipino scholar to make a thorough documentation of the carnage is the late Luzviminda Francisco in her contribution to The Philippines: The End of An Illusion (London, 1973).” I confess to never having heard of Ms. Francisco (whose works are cataloged online by neither the Library of Congress nor the New York Public Library), but Amazon does contain a link for one of her books. It’s called Conspiracy for Empire: Big business, corruption, and the politics of imperialism in America, 1876-1907 and it was published in 1985 by something called the Foundation for Nationalist Studies, which doesn’t have a web page (or at least none that I could discover).

I am, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by the historical evidence gathered here to accuse the U.S. of having killed 1.4 million people in an attempted genocide. This is not the kind of finding that would be accepted for a second by any reputable scholar, regardless of political orientation.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/boot/1061

I'm sorry, but regardless of whether you strongly hate Boot, who indeed is a conservative, he is likely more qualified than the author of the source given for the sentence, who himself has serious POV issues, e.g.: "...the messianic impulse to genocide springs from the imperative of capital accumulation..." There are a few problems here:

1. The casualty figures are incorrect. The most widely accepted Filipino casualty figures are around 16,000 in direct combat and 200,000 because of such indirect factors as famine and disease. These figures, as Boot makes clear, aren't even his; they're those of liberals.

2. To describe the war as "genocide," when it clearly was no such thing, isn't appropriate here. Vicious atrocities on the part of American soldiers were indeed committed, but atrocities do not a genocide make. There was no genocidal intent. The war was basically a war of colonialism. Say what you want about colonialism, but it's not genocide.

3. The author of the source given is indeed a scholar, and his view should be presented, but he is in the minority, and his view, even if you agree with it, should not be placed so prominently in the introduction and stated as if it were fact.

I'm not going to get involved in a violent edit war, so I'll leave the sentence as it is, and hopefully someone will change it. Aristotle1990 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The scholar's research should be presented, but we shouldn't be including a fringe view of the conflict in the first paragraph. Blchrist 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree with 2 and 3, disagree with 1 (figures), please see the massive amount of citations for these figures. Please dont throw around labels, it only reveals your own POV. Good points, thanks.Travb (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Should the paragraph bring up the E. San Juan, Jr. article be removed per WP:FRINGE? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No. His conclusion is backed up by Gore Vidal (in The New York Review of Books) for one. Contra views when found should be cited, but it isn't fringe. What is odd is how hard it is to find contra views engaging with the suggestion and arguing against it, although it seems to be repeated regularly. Jagdfeld (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with 2, but you need some sources for 1 and 3.66.183.58.186 (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, this sentence is in the introduction, with out citation. "The war and occupation by the United States would change the cultural landscape of the islands, as the people dealt with an estimated 34,000 - 1,000,000 casualties, disestablishment of the Catholic Church as the state religion, and the introduction of the English language as the primary language of government and some businesses." Given that the article later states "It is estimated that some 34,000 Filipino soldiers lost their lives and as many as 200,000 civilians may have died directly or indirectly as a result of the war, most due to a major cholera epidemic that broke out near its end", I am ammending this sentence to "an estimated 234,000 combatant and civilian casualties". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.138.161 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Films

The Library of Congress has some films of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War available online. These were made in 1899 by the Biograph and Edison companies -- some aredocumentary footage shot in the Philippines and some 1899ish reinactments). For more info, see The Motion Picture Camera Goes to War : Films from the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Revolution on the LOC website. Searching separately for biograph philippines and edison philippines here (check U.S. Historical, Cultural Collections, uncheck the rest) will find a list of the films. Clicking individual titles will bring up an info page about the film, accessed via a very long search URL. Those pages include links to videos of the films with sensible URLs (examples: http://memory.loc.gov/mbrs/sawmp/0851.mpg, http://memory.loc.gov/mbrs/sawmp/0973.mpg). It seems to me that it might be useful to include a section about these films in this article, along with links to access the material. I haven't worked out a good presentation format for this (hence the complicated explanation here), and thought I would mention it here in case someone else wants to do that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order"

How is that order infamous? Everybody I know never ever heard about the order during their many years in America.66.183.58.186 (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... the image looks identical to the one in this online article, the top caption of which is described with the words "Brig. Gen. Jacob H. Smith's infamous order 'KILL EVERYONE OVER TEN' was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902." The characterization as "infamous" apparently comes from whoever wrote that description of the image and its top and bottom captions. Essentially the same description of the cartoon and its captions appears elsewhere ([1], [2], [3], etc.), and sometimes the cartoon is shown without characterizing the order as "infamous" ([4], [5], [6], etc.). Some of the images of the cartoon on the web show two captions (one top, one bottom), and some show the two lines both in a bottom caption. Some of those images credit the cartoon publication to the "New York Evening Journal" rather than to the "New York Journal". (see [7], [8], etc.). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Then that puts the real source of the image in serious question. If so, I move that we remove it from this article. Wikipedia articles should have factual basis, including images used. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Apparently it's the same newspaper, but renamed. See [9]. According to that source, it would have been named "New York evening journal" on the May 5, 1902 claimed publication date of the cartoon. Looking closer at the image, I see that it shows a masthead saying, "Editorial Page of the Evening Journal ...". My guess is that the actual source of the image is a capture from some unnamed web republisher rather than from the (miscredited) original publication source. The image seems more-or-less legitimate, and I'd assume good faith. Several articles link to it. I'm guessing that a better copy of the cartoon as originally published might be available from microfilm archive copies of the original publication in a good library in the U.S. (I'm located on Boracay Island in the Philippines, so I can't easily check that out). If someone would update the image on Commons with a better copy and/or a copy having a better provenance, that'd be a good thing.

The original question, though, was "How is that order infamous?". FWICS, it was apparently characterized as such in relation to the cartoon at some point by a headline-writer employed by some republisher of the image, and subsequent republishers sometimes echoed that characterization. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Last surviving veteran

Out of curiosity, does any editor on this project with knowledge about and of the Philippine Insurrection know who the last surviving American veteran was? The reason why I ask is because over on the article, Last surviving United States war veterans, there is conspicuously no entry for the Philippine-American War. If anybody could help with finding out who was the last soldier, it would be greatly appreciated.Yoganate79 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

internment camps or concentration camps

I have edited to replace "internment camps" with "concentration camps". In my view that is the correct term, in its standard historical meaning, whereas internment implies camps where people are detained (without legal process) on account of actual, suspected, or feared wrongful or illegal acts. Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon as supporting source

In this edit, I've brought the caption of the cartoon back into agreement with what the cited supporting source supports. The text I replaced was added in this edit, apparently with the presumption that the cartoon supports an assertion that the specific incident depicted in the cartoon actually did occur. The WP article section Jacob H. Smith#Smith' court-martial says that Smith was court-martialed for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Images of Philippine-American War[dead link] This is not a Dead Link. I have got onto this page two times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.29.190 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Explaining removal of article content re "undoubtedly" carried out atrocities

Re this edit, the word "undoubtedly" in quotes caught my eye. I checked the cited supporting source and found no support on the cited page, which doesn't seem very focused on the ground covered by the rest of the text preceding the cite. I've removed the sentence with "undoubtedly" from the paragraph and changed the page number in the cite to one where the remaining info is supported. I'll notify the editor who added this back in 2007 of this change so the removed content can be re-added if I've made a mistake here or if some other reliable source supports the content I've removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Philippine Insurrection"

I believe that at the time this war started on February 4, 1899, the First Philippine Republic was already a state, which had convened a Congress by September of 1898 and declared a new Constitution by January of 1899. Spain had no right to cede the Philippines during the Treaty of Paris since Spanish presence was defunct ever since America occupied Manila. Therefore, this must not be also known as Philippine Insurrection which was fought between American soldiers and Filipino revolutionaries. The Revolutionary Army was replaced by a regular Filipino army as early as June of 1898. Hope someone supports me here. Arius1998 (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The alternative names are names by which the subject is also known under. Even if they might be technically wrong, as long as that name was once (or still is) used widely in some sources, it needs to be mentioned. In this case, while I agree that this was properly a war, it was widely known as the "Philippine Insurrection" to the American media. Therefore it must be retained. See MOS:LEADALT. The title "Philippine–American War" and the succeeding paragraphs should be enough to clarify that the "insurrection" moniker is incorrect.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe we could just omit the term Filipino revolutionaries if Wikipedia rules would let the Philippine Insurrection remain. I believe that the Filipino army, or at least the ones under the Aguinaldo government, had been a regular fighting force under an organized military hierarchy from June 1898 to November 1899. Arius1998 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "revolutionary" in this sense does mean against the Americans, imo. But to the previous revolution against Spain, the term is merely carried over since they were the revolutonaries who helped the US in the war.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the definition of atrocity?

Given that the Americans where unambiguously an invading force, it seems to strain credulity to label the actions of the Filipino insurgents as an atrocity out of context. Does this square with an internationally recognized definition? Does it make sense to identify individual acts as atrocities if the effort as a whole is an attempt at self preservation? This seems to me to have a tinge of 19th century American imperialism apologetic bias about it. Harburg (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of it do sound suspiciously similar to anti-Native American propaganda, especially the description of the torture methods. Transmitting leprosy (how? It wasn't even yet widely viewed as an infectious disease in the late 19th century) and killing natives who refused to support Aguinaldo 'by the thousands' sound extremely dubious as well. In stark contrast are the well-documented orders of several American officers to kill civilians including children in retaliation for guerrilla warfare.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Harburg, The point which you take as given and unambiguous is neither. Also, I don't think that identity of the perpetrator bears on whether or not an act is an atrocity (see e.g., [10]). Re leprosy, the article cites (Miller 1982:92-93) as a supporting source. I don't have access to that book just now, but a little googling turned up a hit on Journal of Asian American studies: Volume 4, which apparently contains "... article report on the unfortunate narrative of an American soldier injected with leprosy by a group of Filipino insurgents (see figure 1 ). ..." (I haven't seen the quoted journal article and don't have access to a library where I might look at it). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... that journal cites David Brody's book, and David Brody's book is happily accessible in Google Books with the picture (which is actually a drawing purportedly from a picture). See page 69 of Visualizing American Empire: Orientalism and Imperialism in the Philippines. Brody actually unequivocally considers it apocryphal and even discusses extensively why that particular imagery was used.

I have to chuckle though. How much more obvious can you get than naming a leper-to-be 'Lapeer'? Brody aside, beyond that 1899 article that captured the American public, we know nothing more about the guy. If this was published today, it would have instantly been classified tabloid fare. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting.

WRT Wikipedia editorial policies, what the article presently says is "It was also stated that some prisoners were deliberately infected with leprosy ..." (emphasis mine), seeming to cite (Miller 1982, pp. 92–93) in support of the assertion that such a statement was made. I have a copy of the Miller book at home, and I'll look at it when I get back there in a few days. The journal I googled up and which you've apparently looked at says, "... article report on the unfortunate narrative of an American soldier injected with leprosy ...". You mention that the article cites the Brody book, and that book further confirms that the claims were stated (in, the book says, an article called "The Revenge of the Filipino" published in an 1899 edition of The World -- apparently in the January 22, 1899 edition -- see [11]). WRT Wikipedia, specifically WRT WP:V, it appears to be verifiable that such a claim re leprosy was stated -- as the article asserts.

WRT the degree of validity of such a claim (something not presently touched upon in the article), my understanding is that you read the Brody book as suggesting that the story is published by The World is apocryphal. It might be worthwhile to mention that, citing that book. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I separated the mention of the leprosy infection from the rest of the paragraph, pending confirmation from Miller (might help if you can determine if it's based on that single newspaper article as well). Please check if the wording is alright. I wonder if we should link the paragraph on media reports to Yellow journalism. The newspaper that reported Lapeer is Pulitzer's New York World. And that, along with several others, were rather infamous for sensationalist headlines that had no basis in fact whatsoever.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I should be back home, with access to my bookshelf, in a couple of days. I further edited the page to more clearly attribute the assertion that the name Lapeer is probably a pun to the Brody book, rather than stating it as (arguably) a Wikipedia editorial opinion. Also, a bit of further googling turned up this book page and this requoted 17 March 1899 news article, this 10 February 1899 newspaper page (see article headed "Made Leper for Revenge"), this 15 February 1899 newspaper (see the story headed "Fiendish revenge" near the top of column 6 on page 1). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my point - I would think that pouring boiling water on people could easily classify as an atrocity in the Iraq conflict, but crying that the pouring of boiling water on viking marauders as they try to bust down the castle gate is an atrocity is conspicuously silly. It's not for me to judge the merits of the McKinley administration's decision to invade the Philippines. But the undisputed facts are that they were grown adult soldiers who were invading another country that, by all accounts, posed no immediate danger to the US or their vital interests. There are arguments that can be made to justify the decision to invade in light of the 19th century world. The classic argument was that if the US didn't invade, some other country would have, and they might not have our sweet disposition. But to cry and moan about insurgent atrocities against invading soldiers in the 19th century? Really? It's embarrassing.Harburg (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I said that when I got back home I would check the Miller book cited in the article re the leprosy portion of the discussion above. I've looked at the book. Page 93 contains the following: "... It was even charged that some prisoners were deliberately infected with leprosy before being released in order to spread the disease among their comrades. ..."

Invasion mischaracterizes the initial U.S. involvement the Philippine-American war. According to (Linn 2000:42) (see cite in the article), U.S. Army forces in the Philippines at the beginning of February 1898, prior to the eruption of hostilities between U.S. and Filipino forces, amounted to about 800 officers and 20,000 enlisted men. Also, in December of 1898 the U.S. and Spain had concluded the Treaty of Paris (1898), in which Spain ceded the Philippines to the U.S. as a part of arrangements ending the Spanish-American War.

Re the Atrocities section, please read WP:DUE. If the section requires adjustment, that WP policy should be looked to for guidance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Mistreatment of POWs is usually unequivocally considered an atrocity. Why are the referred incidents any different than the mistreatment of POWs by the Soviet Red Army in WWII, or the Japanese Army in 1930s China? Oh wait - these were committed against Americans, so that's okay. 144.132.103.189 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess that would apply to American mistreatment of Filipino POWs as well (to say nothing of American mistreatment of Filipino civilians). Oh wait - those were committed against Filipinos, so that's okay.

Your comment adds nothing to the discussion. And your last sentence just smacks of the "oh, we Americans are victims and the world loves to pick on us, boo hoo" stuff I see so often on the Internet these days. Was that part really necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.144.80 (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To be the person above me: What part of "Mistreatment of POWs is usually unequivocally an atrocity" did you NOT understand?!? What he meant is that mistreatment of POWs, regardless who is the captor or captive, is not accepted. As for his last comment, it was a response to a guy who thinks it is ok to torture and kill American prisoners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdamoon (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Here, I tweaked an edit which seemed to have introduced some clumsy wording. Aside from my perception of clumsiness of wording, I think that it is appropriate to say here "the Filipino language" instead of "the languages of the Philippines, such as Tagalog" because (1) I suspect that that the Tagalog/Filipino phrase given here is not representative of all languages of the Philippines and (2) the Filipino language is constitutionally mandated as the national language of the country and Filipino and English are mandated as the two official languages of the country. I am aware that the constitution mandates "[t]he regional languages are the auxiliary official languages in the regions and shall serve as auxiliary media of instruction therein", and that this is a sensitive issue with some (perhaps many) Filipinos who are not native Tagalog speakers. I don't think that this article is a good place to get into that, though.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Language balance

I add Filipino Language or Tagalog on the title to have a Neutral and Balance point of view the English (American's) and Filipino. (Just what in the Textbook was written on Philippines). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.194 (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

GAN quickfail

I am afraid I have quickfailed this article for GA, but it doesn't appear that it was properly nominated in any case. There is no GAN template on this page. So, I'm noting this here and removing it from the MH Announcements template. Please read WP:GAN/I for how to nominate an article for GA. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No mention of Arthur and Douglas MacArthur? Really?

71.168.231.196 (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Gen. Gregorio del Pilar

In an article this long on the war, why is there no mention of Gen. Gregorio del Pilar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.33.104 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Terminology: total-war

The Guerrilla war phase section says, in part, "The shift to guerrilla warfare drove the US Army to a 'total-war' doctrine." The term total-war as used here appears to me to conflict with the meaning described in the Total war WP article. I think that it would be better to say something like, "The shift to guerrilla warfare drove the US Army to adopt counter-insurgency tactics. However, the paragraph where the problematic term appears cites a source in support which I am unable to access. I don't know whether that term might have come from the source cited, or might have been coined by the WP editor introducing it in this article section.

Looking back, I see that the term was introduced to the article here by an anonymous editor in an edit which heavily revised the wording of a paragraph while retaining the cite to the source cited (and still cited) in support. I'm going to WP:BOLDly make the wording change suggested above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the term does not correspond to the Wikipedia article, nor I think to the common definition. It is notable that the article doesn't mention the Boer War during which the term "concentration camp" was first used. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the content of one Wikipedia article cannot generally be used to decide on the content of another article unless they are very closely related (which in this instance they are not). However, many of the points in the lead of the Total war article as it currently stands do accurately apply to the US army's actions in the Philippines, such as "giving no quarter", "blockade", "scorched earth policy", and especially "destroying entire human settlement localities, and/or deliberately killing or executing civilian inhabitants in collective punishment and reprisal for any suspected or actual resistance activity" Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

And of course genocide denial is known to use the phrase "counter-insurgency tactics" to excuse acts of genocide or disguise a genocide as something else [12]. That said, the anon's edit uses the same citation for that new wording with "total war doctrine" in it as the older version of the text: I don't see how the same source can be used to support such very different wording. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Is philippineamericanwar.webs.com and Arnaldo Dumindin a credible source?

I am always suspicious of sources from free web hosting sites like webs.com. Few meet the WP:Third party sources standards. So is Dumindin at philippineamericanwar.webs.com credible? Can we find a more credible source to discuss the concentration camps? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the citation needed tags though. Maybe there is a different tag for questionable source?

This section was added here: [13]

Iloilo added the citation needed tag on 5 October 2014. [14]

195.16.111.156 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I added a different source. 195.16.111.156 (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Some infobox items

This edit caught my eye. It changed a U.S. flag icon for the U.S. insular government from the 1896 flag to the 1912 flag. I took a look at the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands article, and see that it says, in part, "The Insular Government evolved from the Taft Commission, or Second Philippine Commission, appointed on March 16, 1900. This group was headed by William Howard Taft, and was granted legislative powers by President William McKinley in September 1900." From that, it seems to me that the 1896 flag is more appripriate than the 1912 flag.

Also, noticing that the infobox lists the Republic of Negros as a belligerent against the United States, I took a look at that article. I see that the lead section there says, in part, "With the looming invasion of the United States Army, President Aniceto Lacson raised the American flag in the Casa Real to welcome the army as a friendly force." That doesn't strike me as belligerence towards the U.S. That infobox item has two sub-items, Babaylan and ulahan. I took a look at those articles, and don't see anything there which indicates belligerence towards the U.S. during the Philippine-American war.

WTF?? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Not Neutral Point Of View

This article was not written in a Neutral Point Of View; it has a very obvious anti-American bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDA4:2B60:89FD:BA6F:254D:1B46 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

What would you like to change? Specifics would be helpful. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

The references in this article are in need of some attention. If there are no objections, I would like to begin by converting the inline citations to list-defined parameters, for ease of editing in the future. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Signal Corps' Role in the Philippines

I have just removed the ==Signal Corps' Role in the Philippines== section. This section was added en bloc by an IP user, and has little relevance to this article. The text of that section belongs in, and will be added to, the Signal Corps (United States Army) article. On the other hand, several important technological advances and other phenomena made their first appearance or were in their infancy during this conflict, and I believe it would be useful to the reader to describe these, perhaps in a stand-alone section. These include, for example, the first use of the telephone on the battlefield. Also, early examples of the use of heliography, wireless telegraphy, concentration camps, and combat photography on the battlefield. DiverDave (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio concern re Constantino 1975

The cites to this work in the article lack pagenos. I just started work on that, and noticed that the link in the relevant cite in the article goes to a full PDF version of the work. I have a hardcopy of Constantino, Renato (1975). The Philippines: A Past Revisited. Renato Constantino. ISBN 978-971-8958-00-1. and, though I do see some small differences from the PDF, it is identical in a number of places where I did check. There is a copyright notice in my hardcopy which reads:

COPYRIGHT 1975
Manila, Philippines

by

RENATO CONSTANTINO
38 Panay Avenue, Quezon City

All Rights Reserved

ISBN 971-895800-2

Twentieth Printing, July, 2005

I am concerned about a possible copyvio here. Also, I would like to add pagenos missing in the cites to this work and I have a difficulty there in that the pagenos in the PDF do not line up 100.00% with the pagenos in my hardcopy book cited above. From a quick look at the content, the PDF appears to be a later version of the work than my hardcopy version (example: the final two items under Z in the index of my hardcopy are Zabala, Alcalde 112 and Zamora, Jacinto 147, vs. six Z items in the PDF index including one of the two that's in mine but giving a slightly different pageno). I suspect that the PDF is a copyvio item and, in light of WP:COPYVIO, I will probably replace the cite in the article with the cite given above within the next few days, removing the link to the PDF.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been working feverishly on the cited sources, and I am aware of the lack of page numbers in the Constantino source. I will go ahead and add the page numbers for each inline citation, using the shortened footnote (sfn) format, based on the pdf version, unless there are objections. DiverDave (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have corrected this situation. All of the inline citations from this source now have associated page numbers. DiverDave (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The copyvio concern remains; see WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYVIOEL. I have placed a {{copyvio link}} tag in the article; that ought to attract an editor more knowledgeable about copyvios than I to take a look at this. Thanks for doing the pageno work. I haven't looked, but I expect that most of the PDF pagenos will differ a bit from the pagenos in the hardcopy I mentioned above. If need be, I can adjust the full cite to cite the hardcopy and adjust the pagenos to point to the appropriate pages there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate your concerns about possible copyright violations in this article. With respect to citations from Filipino historian Renato Constantino's 1975 book: this book was published by Socialist Stories publications. Incredibly, the webpage for Socialist Stories publications includes the following manifesto:

"We believe that knowledge is the right of everyone and not simply a means to increase the profits of the greedy capitalist, and therefore we believe in spreading the literature of revolution on the widest possible scale. We do not respect copyright laws nor any other reactionary law which is imposed on us by the capitalists of this world, and we will break any law to aide the spread of progressive literature and to bring the world socialist revolution closer!"

The above statement should serve to allay one's fears somewhat about copyvio. But more than that, it makes me really wonder whether any book published by this company can be considered NPOV. Constantino's political views are clearly biased (and of course colored by his own personal experience), but then who among us has no bias whatsoever? Admittedly, many of citations in this article are from primary sources written by officials of the United States government, and the neutrality of such sources could easily be called into question. I do not particularly like the Constantino source, but we can certainly keep it if other editors feel strongly about it. DiverDave (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Re copyvio concerns, the statement you quote above, rather than allaying my concerns re copyvio concerns, has solidified those concerns. Here I have removed the full cite linking to the copyright-violative PDF and replaced it with a cite of the hardcopy work I mentioned above. That has rendered most or all of the pagenos in the {{sfn}}s in the article incorrect, and I will work to correct those now-incorrect pagenos.

Re bias in Renato_Constantino's viewpoint and bias in views expressed in other sources, he/they is/are allowed to have and to express biased viewpoints. WP editors are not allowed to consider perceived bias in those viewpoints as a factor in deciding whether or not to include info about points he/they might make into WP articles and deciding whether or not to cite those sources in support of those points. The same holds true for citing views expressed by other books published by that copyright-flouting publisher, though linking to copyright-violative material from a WP article is not allowed. See WP:DUE.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to the article

Though I was aware that DiverDave has been editing this article over the past week or so I haven't been following those edits change by change. This diff shows the changes made by those edits which, taken overrall, improved the article IMO. Looking at that diff, I do have a few thoughts.

• I see that all the cites of the (Constanting 1975) source discussed in the section above have been removed except for the one I added back in as explained in that discussion above. Since that is now the only cite of that source, it might make sense to cite it as an inline page-numbered cite rather than the way I re-added it, as an sfn.
• I see that the edits removed the Nomenclature section. I think that the info in that section was useful.

I looked at all of the Military history featured articles on various wars as a guideline in restructuring this article. I did not see a Nomenclature section anywhere, and that was my rationale for removing it in this case. I brought the relevant text and citations into the lede section with this edit.DiverDave (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• The addition of the info that Aguinaldo dissolved the Malolos Congress and reinstituted dictatorial rule on June 8, 1899 surprised me. The newspaper source cited to support that does say that a dispatch from Manila reported that, but I don't remember having seen an assertion to that effect anywhere else. That added info will have further impact in this article and in other articles (for example, in all of the places where it is indicated that the Malolos Republic came to an end with the end of the Philippine-American War). I note in passing here that June 8 was three days after the June 5 assassination of Antonio Luna.

I agree. Please see below for more detail.DiverDave (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Much of the content of the new Political atmosphere relates to events prior to the onset of hostilities, and it all is background information. How about moving that ahead of the War section with all the details -- either as a major section or as a subsection under Background?

Seems like a good idea to me.DiverDave (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That is what comes immediately to mind. I may have further thoughts later. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Assertion that Aguinaldo dissolved the Malolos Congress and reinstituted dictatorial rule on June 8, 1899

I have tagged this assertion as {{dubious}}. It is supported by a link to this June 9, 1899 newspaper article which says that the information to that effect came from a "special dispatch from Manila". I note that item 90 in the list at Guevara, Sulpico, ed. (2005). "LIST OF OTHER LAWS AND DECREES". The laws of the first Philippine Republic (the laws of Malolos) 1898-1899. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library (published 1972). p. 181. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help). (English translation by Sulpicio Guevara) says that the Malolos Republic enacted a law on June 30, 1899 providing that appointive representatives to the Congress who failed to attend ten consecutive sessions would be removed. I take that as an indication that the Malolos Republic was still operating and the Malolos Congress was still undissolved as of that date. I can probably find other reliable sources giving similar indications. I am guessing that the dispatch from Manila was in error, was misinterpreted, or was overtaken by later events which rendered it inoperative. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up this, and I apologize for introducing what appears to be an erroneous primary source. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the dispatch from Manila was not entirely correct. After Malolos fell into American hands on March 31, 1899, the seat of the Philippine Revolutionary Congress (PRC) was moved to Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, where it reconvened on May 9. The PRC reconvened again on 14 July 1899 in San Sebastian Cathedral in Tarlac, Tarlac. The PRC finally moved to Bayambang, Pangasinan, which was taken by the Americans on November 13, 1899. The PRC does therefore appear to have existed until at least at November 1899. I have not been able to find any reliable secondary source that supports the assertion cited in the newspaper article of June 9, 1899, and therefore it should probably be removed. On a related note, I feel that the term "Philippine Revolutionary Congress" is preferable to the term "Malolos Congress", "Cabanatuan Congress", "Tarlac Congress", etc. The location changed, but the entity was more or less the same. Just my opinion.DiverDave (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Casualty figures; Bob Couttie

This edit caught my eye, the edit inserted the word as into an assertion, changing it to read, "However, it is not known where Remondo derived his figure for 1895, as the official Spanish population estimate was less than 6 million." (emphasis mine). The assertion is supported by a cite of Bob Couttie, Genocide – The Numbers Don't Add Up, which was tagged {{dead link}}.

• First of all, the link is not dead. I've removed the dead link tag.
• Second, as I read the assertion, the edit would change it to assert that the reason that it is not known where Remondo derived his figure for 1895 was that the official Spanish population estimate was less than 6 million. That does not make sense to me, so I've removed the inserted as and recast the assertion as two separate sentences. I've changed the second sentence from "[T]he official Spanish population estimate was less than 6 million" to "Estimates of combatant deaths range from 25,000 to 36,000; estimates of the number of civilian deaths during the conflict range from 200,000 to 3 million.", which is supported by the cited source.

The cited source is a page onn Bob Couttie's blog at https://bobcouttie.wordpress.com/. There doesn't seem to be a WP article about Bob Couttie, but he is an author of books about the Philippines, including

• Hang the Dogs: The True Tragic Story of the Balangiga Massacre
• Chew the Bones: Maddog Essays on Philippine History

Please improve the article as needed and/or discuss suggested improvements here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Face of the New Peoples Army of the Philippines, Volume Two

In the course of recent extensive editing of this article, I have come across this book:

Welman, Frans (2012). Face of the New Peoples Army of the Philippines. Volume Two. Bangkok: www.booksmango.com (self-published). ISBN 978-616222163-7.

Much of the text and images found in pages 116 through 131 of Welman's book are nearly identical to that found in this Wikipedia article. A quick look at the history of this Wikipedia article will reveal that the text and images were present in this article as far back as 01 NOV 2010—years before Welman's book was published. The main reason I am pointing out this awkward situation is so that future editors will not inadvertently use Welman's book as a source for this Wikipedia article. In fact, this example illustrates quite well why self-published sources are not, as a rule, considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. DiverDave (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this observation is correct. It is clear that the book's "author" has just lifted text almost unchanged from Wikipedia. I was looking at the numerous citation required tags added to the American atrocities section, being worried, given the text that has been tagged, that they might have been placed there just for some I don't like it disruption. But they do seem to be entirely justified. For example, I could find no usable sources for the Gen. Bell's "protect friendly natives from the insurgents, assure them an adequate food supply" quote. All of them are just Wikipedia clones, some easy to spot, some less easy, like the Frans Welman book. If this was a real quote, my feeling is that it should have been possible for me to find an online source. Eventually I did find a source, finding that the quote is not actually by Bell. There appear to be a number of dubious sources used in this article, content dealing with atrocities requires and demands proper sourcing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This is yet another Wikipedia clone [15] being used in the article as a reference for article content. I have deleted it, and given the content a real source. A good test for these fake sources may be to look in them for the incorrect assertion that Gen Bell said the "protect friendly natives from the insurgents..." quote. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Marine Corps

This edit caught my eye. I don't know about block evasion, but the edit removed mention of the United States Marine Corps from the list of belligerent organizations in the infobox. The USMC did participate in the war (see e.g., the Littleton Waller article). The United States Marine Corps article says that the USMC is one of the four armed service branches in the U.S. Department of Defense and also says that it has been a component of the U.S. Department of the Navy since 30 June 1834, so there might be issues here about whether the USMC should be listed as a belligerent organization along with the Navy and, if listed, whether it ought to be indented under the mention of the Navy. IMO it ought to be listed, and I think indenting it would likely cause more confusion than it would prevent. I'm just mentioning this to encourage discussion in case other editors have stronger opinions about this than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Philippine–American War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227012601/http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=T00000000007 to http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=T00000000007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609060908/http://www.bibingka.com/phg/sakay/default.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/phg/sakay/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161228162905/http://www.gov.ph/2002/04/09/proclamation-no-173-s-2002/ to http://www.gov.ph/2002/04/09/proclamation-no-173-s-2002/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616101625/http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf to http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/019/0487/jmmd0190487.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027104028/http://de.geocities.com/hispanofilipino/Articles/Estadisticas03.html to http://de.geocities.com/hispanofilipino/Articles/Estadisticas03.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121205105451/http://www.filipiniana.net/microsite/prr/index.jsp to http://www.filipiniana.net/microsite/prr/index.jsp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not an international conflict under the laws of war?

I just noticed the lead sentence in the final paragraph of Declaration of war by the United States#Other undeclared wars, which reads:

The American Civil War was not an international conflict under the laws of war, because the Confederate States of America was not a government that had been granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation by other sovereign states.

That would apply as well to the First Philippine Republic revolutionary government in the case of the conflict which is the topic of this article, and I am wondering if the point ought to be mentioned here. I do note that the two sources cited in support of this assertion in that other article are specific to the Confederacy. If an equivalent assertion is made in this article, it ought to be supported by another source which is either more specific to the laws of war and/or to this point in relation to this particular conflict. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of unsupported assertions

Here, I have removed an unsupported paragraph from the Aftermath dection of the article The removed paragraph read as follows:

President McKinley, in his instructions to the First Philippine Commission in 1898, ordered the use of the Philippine languages as well as English for instructional purposes, and displace Spanish. The American administrators, used as excuse that finding the local languages to be too numerous and too difficult to learn and to write teaching materials in, ended up with a monolingual system in English, with no attention paid to the other Philippine languages except for the token statement concerning the necessity of using them eventually for the system.

The assertions in this paragraph appear to be incorrect. The full text of McKinley's instructions to the presidents of the first and second Philippine Commissions can be seen in [16]. The instructions to the president of the second commission (not the first) had the following to say about eduction on pp 986-987:

It will be the duty of the commission to promote and extend, and, as they find occasion, to improve, the system of education already inaugurated by the military authorities. In doing this they should regard as of first importance the extension of a system of primary education which shall be free to all, and which shall tend to fit the people for the duties of citizenship and for the ordinary avocations of a civilized community. This instruction should be given in the first instance in every part of the islands in the language of the people. In view of the great number of languages spoken by the different tribes, it is especially important to the prosperity of the islands that a common medium of communication may be established, and it is obviously desirable that this medium should be the English language. Especial attention should be at once given to affording full opportunity to all the people of the islands to acquire the use of the English language.

Perhaps the content I have removed ought to be revised and reinserted, citing a supporting source.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Goal of Benevolent Assimilation

In the article, following after the sentence reading: "On December 21, 1898, President William McKinley issued a proclamation of benevolent assimilation.", I have removed an invosible comment which read: "<!-- So what was goal and policy end of US? Article does not say -->"

The Benevolent Assimilation article says: "The term benevolent assimilation refers to a policy of the United States towards the Philippines as described in a proclamation by U.S. President William McKinley [...]". I went to the proclamation, and the best answer I can find there reads: "[...] the mission of the United States is one of BENEVOLENT ASSIMILATION substituting the mild sway of justice and right for arbitrary rule." That is from the proclamation as quoted here. This would be a better source, but the resolution isn't very good. A PDF with better resolution is available there, but requires (free) registration on the site. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Broken image

The image Manila646 1899.jpg in the top left corner of the infobox collage is broken and is not appearing 78.108.56.35 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC) it's been fixed now 78.108.56.35 (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

March across Samar

I just made these edits which substantially altered the tone of content here re events related to the so-called "March across Samar". I want to point them out here for discussion as needed. I didn't do it in these edits, but think the content re the Balangiga massacre ought to be separated from the content re the order by General Smith and the events on the march expedition which followed, with the former being placed in the Filipino atrocities section and the latter placed in the American atrocities section if mentioned here at all. Lieutenant Waller's notable actions on the march were unrelated to Smith's order, and charactrization as an atrocity is questionable, I think. Waller was court-martialled but, though the trial was played up in the news, the result was acquittal and the case was eventually dismissed was on technical grounds. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of Miller source in 'American war strategy' section

If you read the source, the quoted section is very clearly a characterization of pro-imperialist viewpoints (or, as Miller puts it, people who believe American imperialism does not exist at all) that are contemporary to the work, i.e. in the 1980s. It does not appear to be Miller's personal viewpoint, or the viewpoint of the work (though based on the title it appears to be pro-assimilation.) The quote in question is so obviously biased that I am kind of surprised it was used at all, but attributing it to Miller seems inaccurate even beyond its usage. Further problems with using the quote include: it's not contemporary to the war; it does not actually describe the American war strategy, but rather a supposed motivation. If I were an actual wikipedia editor I would just remove the quote, as it is clearly a poor choice, but I hopefully leave it to someone more actively involved in this article to do so, and/or find a replacement.

Good catch. I've fixed that here, I think, but I'm a lousy wordsmith. Improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated Content in American war strategy section

The American war strategy section says very little about war strategy. It begins with the American justification of the war, describes some initial American campaigns, then briefly discusses suppression of the Philippine resistance. The majority of the section is devoted to various controversies regarding American atrocities. Compare this to the Filipino war strategy section, which has a coherent discussion of the Filipino center of gravity and strategic objectives.

The references section has several papers that discuss the American strategy which would be suited to describing the American center of gravity and strategic objectives.

Would recommend that the atrocities discussed in the American war strategy section be moved to the Atrocities section as well.

209.64.134.194 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Characterization of the name of the conflict

Here, I have made a WP:BOLD change to the lead sentence as regards the characterization of the name of the conflict in an effort to reduce unsupported POV. I've added a couple of cites that added some info. There have been a number of changes related to this over the years (see, for example, this and this -- there are plenty more examples). Please discuss this below if needed rather than edit warring. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)