Talk:Philippine-American War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philippine-American War article.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Philippine-American War as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Tagalog language Wikipedia.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 United States military history task force

Contents

[edit] removed genocide

I removed genocide from the "see also:" section since the killing of great numbers of Filippinos seemed to be do to political reasons rather than their genetic traits, and cultural genocide since that article talks only about the situation in Tibet with no reference to the Philippines. I added History of the Philippines, which should have been there in the first place. I also removed some irrelevent or tangential text from the body of the article which was already covered in History of the Philippines. -- Infrogmation 19:27 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Where can we place information about the Balangiga Massacre (Incident?). I think that is important since it is the most significant unresolved issue about the war. see http://numistrade.net/balangiga/ —seav

The entry for Balangiga has been updated with more accurate information and several errors corrected.

  • But why is it still not mentioned in this article? It should at least be 'See also'ed, or maybe briefly mentioned under 'American escalation,' or 'Consequences.' I'll eventually just put it under 'See also' if no one with better knowledge and wikiness can add it to the body of the article-PJV

[edit] Physics Anyone?

This sentence is utterly inaccurate from a physics standpoint:

The fierceness of the resistance forced the American development and deployment of the Colt .45 pistol, which had a large enough caliber round to knock back a charging enemy.

Bullets fired from any gun carry no more momentum than their "kickback". The kickback of a colt .45 would have to be enough to knock the shooter back just as much as the person he shot. Also, a gun bullet that fast would just pierce through the target, and so would only transfer a fraction of its momentum, meaning the shooter would be knocked back more than the shootee.

so yeah i removed that sentence. 147.154.235.53 12:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard that bullets were made less sharp, even blunt. The sharp would pierce through. But the blunt bullets would knock down an onrushing suicidal amok muhajeen.--Jondel 12:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So i researched it some more, and it is significant that the colt .45 was invented during that conflict, but the main change was in stopping power, not "knockback"; these are two very different issues. I will put the sentence back in with a more accurate description. 147.154.235.53 12:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam

U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones".

Were these techniques used in Cuba? And in Vietnam? If so, we could encadre this war on how the US fought jungle wars.

[edit] Very unlikely name in the article

--- In 1914, Spooney Spoonikus, U.S. Secretary of the Interior for the Philippines (1901-1913) described "the regime of civilization and improvement which started with American occupation and resulted in developing naked savages into cultivated and educated men." ---


Spooney Spoonikus?? Could someone with the proper educational background correct this, please? Gimmick Account 17:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. The quotation was by Dean C. Worcester. 172 17:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I am impressed perhaps amused by 66.27.73.19's claim that: "Also granted the medal of heroism in the Battle of Manila (1899) for his efforts to contain the riots during the Ilocano regional badminton championships was Emilio Pagkalinwanggan, son of Hermano Balangatang." Far be it from me to challenge the Sacred Consensus that emerges in Wikipedia but is this the truth? Something smells funny about this factual assertion.

The Sacred Consesus exists because people who know the truth are much more able to speak out here at wiki. In short, it doesn't exist or do please be bold and edit to what you feel is correct and truthful; however you interpret it. You (or the other person who mentioned the badminton thing)will probably then be challenged to what your (his)sources are . This may be your only chance to do so.--Jondel 01:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.110.226.206 (talk • contribs).

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 Fillipinos 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)

[edit] guerrillas murdering entire villages

One thing this article fails to mention is that during the guerilla insurgency one of the main sources of casualties for the villagers is the guerrillas murdering entire villages that cooperated with the Americans. Also, the guerrillas often times used torture and execution as well as decapitiations and amputations to intimidate the American forces and it wasn't until later on in the war that the stress became too much for the American soldiers and they resulted in execution of prisoners. See "The Savage Wars of Peace" by Max Boot, Pages 113 - 115. Also, of further note, many Americans, including the future General of the Armies, Pershing, sought to actively rebuild the community to establish ties with the locals to help battle the insurgents more effectively. I think this article has a definite bias in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.9.157.147 (talk • contribs).

Anon, please see number four on my compiled list: "The forth technique many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history: Focus on the rival’s negative behavior, diverting the argument from the real question at issue."
You are justifying American foreign policy history. I can show that this is EXACTLY what you are doing by possing this question:
  • If the "guerrillas murdering entire villages" was in this article only, would you complain that the murder and starvation of villagers by Americans was not in the article?
I think the answer is a resounding "NO".
"one of the main sources of casualties for the villagers is the guerrillas murdering entire villages that cooperated with the Americans."
"Main sources" is terribly misleading--even false. What was the number one source of death? Disease and starvation caused by the war which America choose to wage. Some of this disease and starvation was caused by concentration camps set up all over the Philippines, in which villagers were herded into camps and anything outside of the camps was shot on site, similar to what happened in Vietnam. The number two source was probably Americans killing villagers, which the historical record is clear happened. I could expand this page by dozens, maybe even hundreds of pages of testimonies from the soldiers themselves, often boosting of killing "niggers" to their families back home. (see footnotes) Many head commanders were put on trial for killing villagers.
Way at the bottom of "main causes" is alleged attrocities of the insurrgents. I say alleged because they were not almost always not reported by the insurgents themselves, as all of the American attrocities were reported in letters and in trials on the American side, but they were reported by a third party: the high command of the American military. Some of these attrocities were found to be fake or of dubious nature. Did the attrocities happen by insurgents: absolutly.
Your complain also ignores that America invaded the Philippines. So you are sticking up for a military that invaded a country and demonizing the Filipinos attempted to stop this invasion. Some of there tactics of the insurregents were cruel, to be sure, and can be mentioned in the article.
The Filipinos did not kill 100,000-200,000 of their own countrymen. The Filipinos would never have killed anyone supporting the invading power America, if America would not have invaded in the first place. Travb 19:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Travb, you're missing the point. This is supposed to be an enyclopedic article. It should not discuss whether the US was right or wrong. It should neither defend nor attack US motivations. If the guerillas killed civilians who cooperated with Americans, that should be listed. Regardless of whether they would or wouldn't have if the US hadn't occupied. If the occupational authority murdered civilians, that should also be listed. "NPOV" is the name of the game, and your own personal POV is all too apparent. Rob 1100, 17MAY2006 (UTC)
If the guerillas killed civilians who cooperated with Americans, that should be listed.
It has been by me.
If the occupational authority murdered civilians, that should also be listed.
It has, by me.
"NPOV" is the name of the game, and your own personal POV is all too apparent.
I find those who bring up POV often have the most POV. I admit readily that I have a certain POV. Do you? Travb 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

--Oh I most certainly have a very strong POV. I'm an ardent nationalist and unabashed US Imperialist. However, with a BA in history I also know how to write a detached historical argument that deals with the facts and not with my own POV. If I were to spend a lot of time writing an encyclopedic article, 'that' is how I would write it. If I wanted to rant my POV I'd do it on my blog. Rob 11:17, 19MAY2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boot's book The Savage Wars of Peace

Just read the section on the Philippine war--online at Amazon. Boot mentions the attrocities of both Americans and Filipinos. There are a couple of entries which made me raise my eyebrow--but other than this, it is a decent 30 pages--Boot covers both american attrocities and Filipino atrocities--he mentions the water cure and the infamous Jacob H. Smith and the trial of Littleton Waller (p 122), and even the concentration camps (p 123). Boot's writing, from what i have read from other authors, seems accurate (other than a few minor issues).

I quoted Boot on the main page, and added a Filipino attrocities section. Sorry, my mistake. This is my mea culpa. Travb 09:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't know why my previous changes were reverted. CJK 18:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, most of your changes where returned, I decided I was being too heavy handed and to "POV" dependant, but I had already added several new paragraphs by that time, so I went ahead and searched the page history, and added many of your changes back. Travb 19:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, taking a closer look, I don't have a problem with your edits. Thank you. CJK 20:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Umm, this war was over when Teddy declared victory (and it was won by the US)

You guys are so left, its scary.

How about keeping the bias out!

PS Teddy Roosevelt said:

The only true conservative is the one who looks to the future

He was a conservative just like Abe Lincoln. Stop taking credit for him on your american liberalism page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Romanyankee (talk • contribs).

Please sign your post romayankee. I am proud to be on the left, America has a long shameful history of suppressing the left. Know anything bout that?


Teddy also privately assured a friend that the water cure was "an old Filipino method of mild torture. Nobody was seriously damaged whereas the the Filipinos had inflicted incredible tortures on our people." (Private letter from Roosevelt to Speck von Sternberg, July 19, 1902, in Elting Morison, editor, The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, vol. 3, page 297-98.)
Americans have such a fine history of denial! Travb 09:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Shameful? Speak for yourself! Considering all the BS that the left has dealt out! Know anything about that?
Yeah, denial, which is part of the lefts gameplan! Politics by denial and deceit!
P.S. and I am proud to be on the Right!
Romanyankee 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Romanyankee
So I guess you know nothing about the history of the suppression of the left? Travb 00:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
And I suppose you know nothing about the 'suppression' of the right here. Starting after the 1960's of course. The fact is it gets so little attention that it seems to people the left can do nothing wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Romanyankee (talk • contribs).
Please sign your posts Romanyankee, also use :: please. I will let you have the last word.Travb 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That is biased

American soldiers began executing prisoners very early on in the war. The so called "Filipino Attrocities" were just a retaliation to American brutality. Furthermore, it was against Aguinaldo's orders who insisted that Americans be treated fairly.

And the comment that mentions "guerillas massacred civilians who were pro-American" or however it was worded, is also inaccurate. Nearly the entire population was loyal to Aguinaldo, as this article mentions. In fact, American brutality i.e. whipping out whole villages, killing women and children along with wounded soldiers, is a direct result of civilians aiding the guerillas. Ironicly the whole reason the Filipinos surrendered was because of American brutality toward the population. I don't even have to read that book to tell you that this is a bias.

Also I disagree with the statement of the Balangiga Massacre being an atrocity, rather a surprise attack or ambush. And even if you think otherwise, it should at least be worded differently.

-Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs).

Joe, you edited what General “Fighting Joe” Wheeler said, into something that he never said, the original sentence said:
General “Fighting Joe” Wheeler insisted that it was the Filipinos who had mutilated their own dead, murdered women and children, and burned down villages, solely to discredit American soldiers.
You changed the sentence to state:
General “Fighting Joe” Wheeler insisted that it was the Filipinos who had mutilated their own dead, murdered women and children, and burned down villages, when in actuality, the Americans were commiting such attrocities.
I am sorry, but Wheeler never said any such thing.

>>How is that sentence any differnt from the one I posted? The phrase "General Wheeler insisited" is a clear sign that he did say such things. I just reworded it because I thought it sounded misleading to a viewer uneducated about the war.

"war crimes were solely to discredit American soldiers."
"war crimes were actual by Americans were commiting such attrocities."
Please tell me you see the difference? I am quoting someone, a military American historical figure, who is justifying the murder of the filipinos, with what I see as an absurd idea. You then change the quote, to state that it was Americans who committed the attrocities.

>>>I ment to clarify that Wheeler was placing the blame on the Filipinos rather than Americans who were commiting the attrocities.

I see on both sides of the political divide on wikipedia, wikieditors dont give our readers enough credit--I think if someone came away from reading this article, they would see wheeler's statment as absurd. We don't have to put words in wheeler's mouth for fear of misleading an uneducated person about the war. We don't have to have ONLY overwhelming negative facts about America attrocities. I think the average person is smart enough to come to their own conclusion--I figure give the people the facts, and let them come to their own conclusion. Who are we to spoon feed the public the side of the story we want them to see? I have NO PROBLEM stating that the Filipinos committed war attrocities too. There is some evidence of this, although it is not anywhere near as conclusive like American attrocities are.

>>>I don't have ne problem with it either. It just seems to me that stating such things seems like we're trying to justify America's own attrocites or it at least makes it seem that the brutality was on equal ground, which it wasn't.

I also deleted this sentence: "In response to this, many Filipino soldiers and commanders began surrendering, seeing that the war was taking a toll on their own people, and would not be worth any further cost of life." because of what you wrote here "Ironicly the whole reason the Filipinos surrendered was because of American brutality toward the population."

>>>>>My original paragraph stated somthing along the lines of "As a result, many Filipino guerillas felt obligated to surrender, in order to stop the suffering the war was causing to their own people." which if you sounds better imo and we could at least put that in. But I can see how you took that as I was making it sound as if that is the whole reason, cause that's how it did sound. But if you read below my reasoning, I think you'll take my side on this and see that where I'm coming from.


There may have been many reasons that the Filipino soldiers and commanders surrendered, to attribute it to only "seeing that the war was taking a toll on their own people" is reading commanders minds, which is POV. There were probably many reasons that the commanders surrendered--to attribute it to one reason and one reason only is reading commander's minds...

>>But this is a fact. Just because it does not apply to ALL Filipino soldiers who surrendered does not meen it should not been mentioned. Point being, American brutality towards the general popluation DID have a major effect on Filipino soldiers, compelling them to surrender. In fact, the American's did such things (concentration camps, general massacres, etc) as a direct result to demoralize the Filipino guerillas into surrenduring. I'm not going to change this just yet, but maybe you will see otherwise now that you've seen my reasoning.

Don't you see the slippery slope here? If you start explaining the intellectual thoughts and reasoning behind why the soldiers did what they did, can't you see where that leads?
As far as it being a "fact", how can anyone 100 years ago know exactly what the majority of the soldiers where thinking. Because that is what you are talking about--the reasoning and thought process of Filipino soldiers 100 years ago.
I have never read this conclusion that you state as a fact, in any of the books or articles. There is one article, which I will post online today, which states that American hardball tactics was what pacified the island (it was the first island to have concentration camps)--soft tactics, like building schools etc. did not pacify this particular island. If you would like me to quote and footnote this reference, I will gladly do this. It is much more authentic, and much less open to debate, than saying that all (or most) of the soldiers surrendered because of attrocities on the population. If you have quotes from scholars which say what you establish is a fact, I welcome this inclusion in the article. So far I am the only person to footnote anything in this article (I may be wrong, there may have been maybe 1 or 2 footnotes on this article before I started working on it)

>>>First of all I'm not trying to read ne body's mind here. But your not quite grasping what I'm trying to say. The American's were nearlly stalemated by the guerilla war and were frustrated, taking more casualties than they were inflicting. They then resorted to attacking the general population, putting civilans in concentration camps which a weakened, demoralized, ultimatly defeated the Filipino freedom fighters. I meen put two and two together. Why else would they surrender? Their own people, their own country was being turned into a literal hell hole. They had little left to fight for. I'm not the type of person to remember and cite differnt articles, But I have a decent amount of knowledge on this particular subject, and all I have come across and determined myself, have all pointed to American brutality toward the civilian population was the direct result of the defeat of the Filipino army. I don't have ne single fact from a mainstream scholar or ne thing(when I find an article backing this I'll be sure to post it), but I have enough common sence to see no other reason why they would surrender.

Hell look at the civillian casualty figures if your not satisfied. 200,000 at least. Some historians put that number well over a million. Do you, in your right mind, not think that kind of damage would take some mental toll on a soldier's consciense?

Point being, the attacks on the civillians and the concentration camps decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of the Philippine resistance fighters-this however way you want to look at it led to the ultimate defeat of the Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender. I see no reason how that is in any way inaccurate.

>>Well I can see where your coming from, but you have to remember that it is very likely that those reports were biased or just justifying America's own attrocity.

I agree, and as I said above, I think other people, who read the article in its entirety, will agree too. If we start putting weasel words in or worse yet, completly delete that section about Filipino attrocities, the article will read to an impartial reader like propoganda--then no one believes what is written. Better to keep that information in and let the reader decide for themselves.
In regards to the "Balangiga Massacre" that is the historical term used by most historians today--just as the Philippine insurrection is now called the Philippine-American War (see talk above), as such, the name should remain.

>>I wasn't refering to the term "Massacre" but I disagree that it should be considered an atrocity. It was really an ambush or surprise attack, a Filipino respone to fear of the Americans actually executing some of them.

I agree. I have a final in an hour--more later tonight.... Travb 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding what I wrote on the page: "Other attrocities included those by General Vincente Lukban, the Filipino commander who masterminded the surprise attack in the Balangiga Massacre, that killed over fifty American Soldiers. Media reports stated that many of the bodies were mutilated." My mistake, I stand by that sentence. According to author Boot, his description of what the Filipinos did to the bodies of the Americans after they were dead could only be described as attrocities. Please read the section on Amazon.com. Sober reading...Travb 16:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Hope this clarifies my reverts.
It is really easy to nitpick sections of an article, harder to build something from scratch. It really frustrates me how people do this all the time, I have that problem with the Lodge committee page I created. People come in and nitpick words, but add little to the actual article when the article is obviously not completed yet. What is worse with that article, is the people who are doing the editing know little about the actual Lodge committee anyway. If you want, you are welcome to add some more information on the consentration camps set up on the island, etc.Travb 16:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

>>>Trust me, I've probobly contributed to the whole Philippine American War page more than probobly anybody on this site. a good 3/4 of the battles on this such war were written by me, and I have also written much of the information on the page we are discussing. So please don't mistake me for one of those people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs).

That is aweseome. I wonder who added all of those wars--great job--I am impressed with all of your hard work. I am tired from staying up all night last night studying, so I will get around to what I mentioned yesterday--keep up the awesome job, I truly am impressed. Travb 01:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


As mentioned before, I will quote a scholar, a historian about how the concentration camps and the hard ball tactics caused the population to surrender, not the "school programs" and "benevolent" programs. I was going to do this today, but the article is on my laptop, and my flash drive is at school, but since you seem eager about this, I will go ahead and add the quote and add a link to the full article later this week. K?

Right now I am typing up all the deceptions of the Republican administration about the war, which I plan to add to U.S. presidential election, 1900, this is because someone else threatened to radically alter Lodge Committee, (see talk page) they wanted proof of what I said, so I am providing it now.... After that I will boot up the laptop and type the reference. Travb 04:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added quote

JOEFIXIT, I added the quote in the English Education section. Travb 05:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to incorporate this disgusting justification into the article

Any suggestions on how to include this disgusting justification of the war into the article?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lodge_Committee_testimony_from_the_New_York_Times#Topics_of_the_Times

It is by the imperialist New York Times. I have been reading the NYT Lodge Committee articles and the articles on the Senate debates. These jingoists make me truly sick to my stomache. Travb 12:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And I suppose we can tell that everthing the Filipinos say is true and what the US says is automatically false? CJK 17:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, look a case in point.Travb 19:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JOEFIXIT edit

JOEFIXIT wrote:

The subesquent American brutality towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.

JOEFIXIT, whatever man. It is a more milder version of what you said before, which is great, but I still dislike the sentence. You win because you are more persistent than me. I will keep it in, simply because I respect your work on the battles of the Philippine-American War and don't want to offend you.Travb 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't meen to offend anybody Travb, if that's how you took it, and wouldn't be offended by that. I just dont see in ne way how that is wrong. It is one of the main factors that was the downfall of the Philippine Army or at least had somthing to do with it. Any way you look at it. I don't want to draw this in crayon but, look at where the guerillas obtained information, materials, me(as stated above). They got it from civilians. they LOST ALL OF THAT when Americans began attacking and imprisoning the civilians this decreased much of that. How did it not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs).

Hey JOEFIXIT its cool. You and CJK fight it out. I've had my say, you know how I feel about it.Travb 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] brutality POV?

I don't know what else you would call it. I changed it to aggression, since we have some people who really wanna play this thing by the book. I guess this saying from the Second Boer War article 'After a drawn out 9 day seige' would be pov to! Maybe some people wouldn't consider that drawn out. huh. Being as how I can count NUMEROUS articles that have what you would consider POV in it, if ur using that as a standard!. Why change this one because it's hard for some of us Americans to digest that we actually did somthing like that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs).

How about change it to American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes?
The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.
This makes a section of the sentence non-POV: up to this point:
The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men...
But then you have the problem of citing in the remainder of the sentence:
...morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.
...as mentioned above.
The closest thing we have to citing your idea in this article is what I added:
As one historian wrote about Marinduque, the first island with concentration camps: "The triple press of concentration (camps), devastation, and harassment led Abad (the Marinduque commander)...to request a truce to negotiate surrender terms...The Army pacified Marinduque not by winning the allegiance of the people, but by imposing coercive measures to control their behavior and separate them from the insurgents in the field. Ultimately, military and security measures proved to be the (essential element) of Philippine pacification."[1] This assessment could probably be applied to all of the Philippines.
How about this sentence, can we agree on this? :
The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.[2] (same footnote as Marinduque footnote above...)
This edit deletes the word "morale".
But I will let you and CJK fight this out. I won't edit this sentence anymore without your approval. Travb

[edit] "Morale" in history books

If I can find a sentence in a history book which confirms the morale of the Filipinos was low because of American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes. If I find this sentence, this will make your statment nearly impervious to future attack. I hate to "cherry pick" and search history books specifically to support a particular view, but this unfortunatly appears the only way to satisfy both of us.

But thus far, I haven't found a historian which states this.

Benevolent Assimilation : The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, by Stuart Miller mentions the low morale of American soilders but does not mention anything about the low morale of Filipino resistance. Travb 06:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The U.S. Army and Counterinsurgency in the Philippine War, 1899-1902, by Brian McAllister Linn:

p 72 (Lacuna) substituted a strategy that would increase guerrilla morale, build up a supply system, and demonstrate to the populace that the revolutionaries still controlled the countryside.

p. 73 There ws hard fighting at Manicling, but in all three towns the attacks were beaten off with large guerilla losses. These engagements cost the guerrillas heavily in men and ammunition and eroded much of the morale that Lacuna had built up.

p. 128 Some reforms, such as restricting cockfighting, gambling, and prostitution were imposed as much to preserve the morale of the soldiers as the morals of the Filipinos. Travb 06:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A hopeless fight against a lifetime of indocrination

JOE wrote:

I changed it to aggression, since we have some people who really wanna play this thing by the book.

Don't you see my strategy JOE? If I cite all of my work, or "play it by the book" as you say, for two reasons:

  • First, the article become a really excellent encyclopedic reference, but more important
  • Second I cite all my work because it makes this article almost impervious to attacks from American apologists.

How can American apologists attack and win against the words of respected historians when most Americans don't even know about the Philippine-American War?

I agree with your atrocity statment in spirit, but I want a noted historian to say it too. Because of my critique, your sentence is much better from the original, would you agree?

I just see this sentence as a weak chink in this article, the achilles heel, and I simply want to shore up this weak link. This will make the article more encyclopedic.

Remember, the majority of people who work on and read wikipedia are Americans. These Americans have been taught their whole entire life that America is a "beacon of freedom and democracy" to the rest of the world. If you want to convince these Americans that America has done attrocities, and get through to such strongly indocrinated people, your factual proof and evidence has to be excellent and beyond approach. Your evidence has to be so good that only the most extreme American ideologue will be able to justify or deny that these attrocities took place. Unfortunatly by writing about such attrocities, we are fighting against a whole life time of indocrination.

Look at the user today who reverted that one sentence you wrote. He appears to be one of the tens of millions of Americans who is convinced that America a "beacon of freedom and democracy". Worse, he may be an example of an "extreme American ideologue" that I described above. He attacks your sentence because even though it is much better written and tighter than the original, it still has minor holes.

People like this wikipedian will continue to attack the article until the evidence is so airtight, that even those "extreme American ideologues" will be unable to attack the evidence. In addition, the average American who knows absolutly nothing about the Philippine-American War will be forced to admit that American attrocities took place.

Of course, the large majority of Americans will still justify these attrocities away using several conditioned techniques, just as this user did today.

But despite this, these Americans will not be able to deny the veracity and scholarship of this article. Hopefully a small handful of Americans will begin to see the lies, glaring ommissions, and half truths behind Americanism. Travb 06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Blah,blah,blah! And your not an ideolog? And the Phillipinos did? Thought so! Look out, distinguished historians... I guess that means one should just shut up and not dissent against them...RIGHT! Your obviously not american, maybe a brit. What did churchill say. " democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
Thats right we ARE a beacon of freedom, and just look at the phillipines now!

Romanyankee(Romanyankee 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Hello Romanyankee when you add anything pertitent to the Philippine-American War, I will address your concerns. But all I hear is rage and simplistic ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with this topic.
I am wondering what content have you added to this article? Nothing comes to mind, can you refresh my memory?Travb 17:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I did mention something about bias and keeping it out of the discussion. So much for an accurate source. Typical, play guilt after you had already railed against Americans ignorance of the phillipine war. Again, I refer to churchills quote (another little contribution that was overlooked). I hope your not late for another final. (Romanyankee 18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
I'd like to ask Travb to stop posting inflammatory material that has little to do with article content. This isn't a debate forum. CJK 18:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better figures

Is there another source for the claim of one million deaths due to the effects of the war other than a book written in 1908 which mentioned the number in passing? I'm not willing to take a single source that old, temporally close to the conflict and seemingly written by a Filipino at face value without authentication by other sources, especially when numbers like "one million" are being bandied about, and even more especially considering how slanted many of the people editing this page seem to be. Oldkinderhook 13:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

considering how slanted many of the people editing this page seem to be. Compared to you? You have provided absolutly no facts on this page, except your opinion. Sorry this history does not match your Disney-land version of American history. I guess if "only" 100,000 Filipinos were killed, that would somehow justify American attrocities.
Most historians agree that at least 100,000 to 200,000 Filipinos died. The million, from what I have read, is rather high.
Consistently, the more American apologists try to downplay American attrocities, the better the case against America becomes. I added this footnote to satisfy your justifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#ref_furtherreferences (footnote 4). Maybe a book written in 1999 is to old too? Travb 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"They were also lavishly armed and well led. Even better were the U.S. warships at the ready to fire their big guns and destroy Philippine positions when needed. In contrast, the Filipinos were armed with a motley collection of rifles, a number of which were taken from dead Spanish or American soldiers, or smuggled in by Philippine patriots." This reeks of pov. REEKS! WookMuff 23:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you cannot provide any facts to the contrary, then this simply shows your own POV. I have provided 16 footnotes to back up the history, you have provided your opinion, and nothing else. Just because an article does not match your own pet-view of American, does not automatically mean it is POV.Travb
not an american... and i was referring to the phrasing. "lavishly", "Even better" "big guns" "pPhilippine patriots". Thats POV WookMuff 00:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my apologies, when you are constantly attacked, you sometimes shot first and ask quetions later. This page has been attacked by apologists for a sometime.
Go ahead and change that info, I agree with you, it seems to be POV, probably a quote from a book. It is something that I did not add myself. I don't know if the other "protector" of this article would agree though--you can fight it out with him, we disagree sometimes about edits, as you can see above...
Again, sorry for jumping the gun. Fighting gets tiring sometimes.Travb 01:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

guilt trip on the phillipine war points again. What footnotes are you referring to about America's advantage? And those warships did really well in the jungle there where the conflict favored the Fillipino's (sp). That paragraph above is TOTALLY POV. If you made some more sense (without the bias) you wouldn't be "constantly attacked". Now, I will say you have done a good job with the article regarding (for the most part) a wealth of information. (68.227.211.175 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

sokay... personally i have no desire to defend america about this... america is just a country, good bad or otherwise. I am not saying they did these things, or that they did not. Just that this particular paragraph sounds propagandaish... it has a real "the brave filipino patriots fought their decadant western imperialist enemies valiantly" feel to itWookMuff 02:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how "patriots" is POV. thx1138 13:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
because they could have just been guys, smuggling weapons? calling them patriots implies righteousness and love of country. If you can cite references for the gun smugglers, go ahead. It just really seems like propaganda talk. WookMuff 06:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with WookMuff:"lavishly"..."Philippine patriots" sounds POV, but without such strong, fighting language that WookMuff uses like "REEKS".Travb 07:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't help it... it really did reek ;) I could smell it all the way from australia :) WookMuff 09:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nominate?

Could I nominate this article? -Isao —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.81.167.18 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Bias

This article is clearly not objective and most of the contributors who have written it demonstrate a very clear and obvious anti-American bias in the page. While I don't doubt that most of the information given in the article is factual and accurate, that does not change the fact that the article is not in any way, shape, or form balanced and contains a great deal of POV that is overly sympathetic to the Philipino cause and virtually demonizes the Americans. As difficult as it may be with certain topics, wikipedia should strive to be neutral and to approach topics with a greater concern for fairness and accuracy than with the desire to push a particular political agenda or worldview. This article deserves to have a POV warning put up on the page, and I'm going to add one.

I also have a message for both the right-wing and left-wing readers and contributors to Wikipedia (and past evidence has shown me that, quite clearly, there are far more of the latter than of the former). The United States has indeed, regrettably, committed war crimes and atrocities in its past. This is a historical undeniablity. Simply stating that these events took place does not necessarily in and of itself constitute political bias or anti-Americanism; it is simply the truth, and the truth is not always pleasant to behold. At the same time, it is very wrong to judge all of American history by misguided actions committed on a widespread basis during one war, or by isolated incidents committed in other wars. I am NOT trying to be an apologist for American actions during any conflict, whether it be the Phillipine War, the Vietnam War, or even World War II...but, simply put, there is more to American history than the wars that have been fought and the mistakes that have been made. To talk about the United States as if it is some sort of evil empire in the same league with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Uniion is not at all fair in the broader scope of American history. In many ways the United States has indeed been a beacon of hope and freedom for millions of people around the world, and continues to be to this day--most of our population is, after all, descended from immigrants, and they came to this country for a reason. The wars the United States has engaged in over the course of the last two hundred years have generally contributed to the advance of freedom and the betterment of mankind; were it not for the United States, the world would be living under one form or another of tyranny or totalitarian government at this time. The U.S. has, particularly in the last century, been the main, primary, central force standing in the way of the utter demise of democracy by numerous threating forces determined to destroy it. The U.S. has resumed that role even in the present day. Wars like the one described in this article are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself, and they are generally regarded by American historians, as well as most Americans who know about them, as mistakes. If the American people were proud of these ugly blemishes upon our history, it would say something quite different and far more negative about our national character--however, most Americans, those who are well educated, are not. They do, however, have much else to be proud of, throught the larger scope of American history. America has, overall, done much good for the world, and the people who refuse to see that or even acknowledge that--such as a couple of the contributors to this article--are guilty of having an extremely severe case of selective perception. The entire Philipine campaign was an extremely erroneous violation of basic American ideals. Those ideals still stand, however, and they serve as a model to the rest of the world today. No one should ever wish for the absence of the United States of America from the face of the Earth; the consequences for civilization would be horrendous, and global despotism would soon, without question, follow.69.138.38.49

"Simply stating that these events took place does not necessarily in and of itself constitute political bias or anti-Americanism; it is simply the truth, and the truth is not always pleasant to behold." You should have kept that in mind while reading the article, since all it does is simply state that these events took place. Unless you can provide some examples of bias or anti-Americanism in the article I am removing the POV tag. thx1138 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] few originals and many copies

Anon wrote in his argument:

Simply stating that these events took place does not necessarily in and of itself constitute political bias or anti-Americanism; it is simply the truth, and the truth is not always pleasant to behold. At the same time, it is very wrong to judge all of American history by misguided actions committed on a widespread basis during one war, or by isolated incidents committed in other wars. I am NOT trying to be an apologist for American actions during any conflict', whether it be the Phillipine War, the Vietnam War, or even World War II...but, simply put, there is more to American history than the wars that have been fought and the mistakes that have been made. To talk about the United States as if it is some sort of evil empire in the same league with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Uniion is not at all fair in the broader scope of American history. In many ways the United States has indeed been a beacon of hope and freedom for millions of people around the world, and continues to be to this day--most of our population is, after all, descended from immigrants, and they came to this country for a reason....etc.

I am NOT trying to be an apologist for American actions during any conflict

I disagree, strongly. Labeling American attrocities "mistakes" is falacious, and a very common tactic of American apologists. Your entire argument is one big apolgy.

Your entire argument is unoriginal. It is the same information that Americans were all taught in rote in school. It is easy to spout such empty ideological truisms, harder and much more threatening to your current ideology to test such truisms.

I do not have the time nor the patience to rehash, once again why your argument is fallacious. Your ideas, espoused and embraced by the majority of your fellow countrymen, reminds me of the two quotes from Alexis de Tocqueville:

  • History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies.
  • I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.

I skimmed over the rest of your argument. Within two sentences of your arugment, I knew what your conclusions were already going to be. I have debated so many Americans, I probably know how to debate your arguments better than you do, and often know what you are going to say, maybe even before you do.

Your message today, and other recent messages have encouraged my to begin collecting past arguments with other wikiusers so I do not have to repeat the same arguments again and again and again to a group of people who have the same understanding of history as you do.

Here is the link: My arguments with American apologists

If after reading my arguments, you can come up with a novel argument which has not been rehased between myself and other Americans, please share it. If it is not suffiecent new, and if I havent heard if a million times before, please forgive me if I completly ignore you. Travb 14:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, atrocities were committed. By the US, by Spain, by England and France and all the colonial powers. It was the way things were done at the time. The Ottomans massacred millions of Chrisian Aremnians. Atrocities go all the way back through the history of mankind. Instead of demonizing the US and ignoring the actions of every empire throughout history, clinically record what happened instead of applying your own 21st century bias to it. Rob 1111, 17MAY2006 (UTC)
Please read Four techniques many American's use to ignore American foreign policy history (Bennett vs. Chomsky). Your first sentence fits under number four.Travb 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Number four: Fourth: "Focus on the rival’s negative behavior, diverting the argument from the real question at issue". This is exactly what 'you' are doing; focusing on America's negative behavior instead of writing a detached historical argument. I'm willing to discuss American atrocities; in the context that such behavior had historically. Instead of posting a link dealing with the Iraq war (a fallacy your own page rails against) why don't you counter with an argument that brutal repression 'wasn't' the norm of the time, or admit that the US was merely following the normal political and military mores of the time? Rob 11:11, 19MAY2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

this paragraph was deleted:

While some measures to allow partial self-government were implemented earlier, the guerrilla war did not subside until 1913 when US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a change in policy that would, after a transitional period, grant the Philippines full independence. In the south, Muslim Filipinos resisted until 1913— the so-called Moro rebellion. 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 Colt M1911 Handgun was developed for its larger .45 caliber ammunition (45 ACP), resulting in additional stopping power.

I don't think I wrote any of this, and have no attachment to this paragraph. I added it back to the article. I think if no one else objects, it can be deleted again.Travb 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Moro rebellion was totally separate from the Aguinaldo rebellion and the aricle should say so. The Wilson program is not relevant to the Moros and does not belong with them. So I revised it, noting the Moro rebellion is still going on in 2006. Rjensen 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Kewl, thanks for clarification Rjensen. Travb 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualty figuers

"In the last two months of 1899, U.S. casualties in 229 engagements totaled 69 killed and 302 wounded. From January to April 1900, there were 442 encounters, and 130 U.S. soldiers were killed, with 325 wounded. Filipino losses were estimated at 3,227 killed, 694 wounded, and 2,864 captured. From May 1900 to July 1, 1901, American forces suffered 245 killed, 490 wounded, and 138 captured or missing in 1,026 encounters with Filipino forces. American losses after July 1901 were small. Much higher were the number of deaths due to disease."

That just seems a little scetchy to me, for both sides. Which leaves 582 American dead, assuming that the 138 captured were counted as fatalities. I find this a little low. This also leaves the death to disease at a remarkably high 3,652. The Filipino casualty figures you listed are even more contrasting. Only 3,227 killed and 700 wounded? Some scources state higher casualty figures in the first battle of the war.

Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century

Philippines Insurgency (1899-1902): 220 000 Eckhardt: 8,000 civ. + 4,000 mil. = 12,000 Small & Singer: 4,500 USAns Irving Werstein, 1898: The Spanish American War US, battle: 5,000 Filipino, battle: 20,000 Filipino civilians: 250,000 Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace (also FAS 2000) Combat US: 4,234 Filipino: 16,000 Filipino civilians: 200,000 of disease/famine Clodfelter US: 4,234 d, incl. 1,073 in combat Filipino battle: 16,000 Filipino civilians: 200,000 Leon Wolff Little Brown Brother (1961) US, battle: 4,234 Filipino, battle: 16,000 ("actually counted") to >20,000 ("true total")

according to Mark Clodfelter the Americans suffered 1,073 deaths in combat. Which meens the Americans would have to of suffered around 600 more combat deaths after 1901, a "small" number according you. These casualty figures seem a little suspect to me.

    • The casualty figures given are from the official US Army reports. The higher number (1000) includes fighting against the Spanish in 1898. Disease was the major factor causing American deaths, all reportsagree. The 200,000 number for Filipino civilians: there was another massive cholera epidemic in the islands that indeed killed many tens of thousands (including many American soldiers; soldiers also got yellow fever, typhoid and malaria). Such epidemics happened often in the tropics. Antiwar critics count the deaths as war deaths and blame the Americans. For more details see [3]. also see "Immunities of Empire: Race, Disease, and the New Tropical Medicine, 1900-1920" in Bulletin of the History of Medicine 70.1 (1996) 94-118 of special value: "The Philippines insurrection and the 1902-4 cholera epidemic: Part I-Epidemiological diffusion processes in war" by Matthew Smallman-Raynor, Andrew D Cliff Journal of Historical Geography, v 24, n 1, January, 1998, p69-89 (ID

hg970077)ABSTRACT This, the first of a two-part paper, presents an historical case study of the impact of war and its aftermath upon the spread of an infectious disease, cholera. The choice of area (Philippine Islands), the time (a year-long period in the immediate aftermath of the Insurrection against US annexation, March 1902-February 1903) and the epidemic (cholera) are conditioned by the detailed reports prepared by the Chief Quarantine Officer for the Philippine Islands, and published weekly in the contemporary US Public Health Reports. The reports include textual accounts of the progress of the epidemic, and numerical evidence regarding the weekly incidence of cholera in over 440 settlements. This information is used to reconstruct the routes by which cholera diffused through the archipelago and to model the diffusion process on the geographical levels of province, island and nation. It is shown that a spatially contagious component dominated the spread of cholera in many geographical areas and at all spatial levels. In contrast, hierarchical diffusion was generally found to be of only limited significance in the transmission process. These results correlate with the lack of a well-developed urban hierarchy in many parts of the Philippines. Part II of the paper, to be published in Vol. 24, Number 2 (April 1998) of the Journal, goes on to compare the spatial diffusion patterns described here with those found in a subsequent peacetime cholera wave in the Philippines (May 1903-February 1904). Results from both parts of the paper are used to assess the manner in which war can affect diffusion processes and the circumstances under which spread is likely to be dominated by contagious, hierarchical or mixed diffusion processes. Rjensen 06:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualty Figures-You're mistaken

"The casualty figures given are from the official US Army reports. The higher number (1000) includes fighting against the Spanish in 1898. Disease was the major factor causing American deaths, all reportsagree. The 200,000 number for Filipino civilians: there was another massive cholera epidemic in the islands that indeed killed many tens of thousands (including many American soldiers; soldiers also got yellow fever, typhoid and malaria). Such epidemics happened often in the tropics. Antiwar critics count the deaths as war deaths and blame the Americans. For more details see [3]. also see "Immunities of Empire: Race, Disease, and the New Tropical Medicine, 1900-1920" in Bulletin of the History of Medicine 70.1 (1996) 94-118 of special value: "The Philippines insurrection and the 1902-4 cholera epidemic: Part I-Epidemiological diffusion processes in war" by Matthew Smallman-Raynor, Andrew D Cliff Journal of Historical Geography, v 24, n 1, January, 1998, p69-89 (ID"


This is incorrect. When the war broke out, the U.S. forces who were present to fight were basically the same forces which had fought in the Spanish American War. It was not understood at the time that the skirmishes were a prelude to a new, longer, bloody struggle. When the Spanish American War veterans who were now fighting against the Filipinos were wounded or killed, pensions were issued from the Spanish American War pension fund. It made sense. They were Spanish American War veterans afterall.

more troops arrived to fight in the action – tens of thousands more. These were men who joined after the Treaty of Paris was signed, and had no plans to fight Spain. Still, when they were wounded or killed, the government continued its procedure of issuing pensions from the Spanish American War pension fund. A new Philippine American War pension fund was never created. This was true for men who were involved in fighting as late as 1906, eight years after the Spanish American War ended!

to collect a pension, the paperwork must be filed correctly. The pensions were paid out of the Spanish American War Pension Fund, so the pension records had to read “Spanish American War.” In fact, all related government documents – including gravestones – followed suit. As a result, all of these government records list all Philippine American War veterans as “Spanish American War Veterans.” This has come down to us today and it is still creating havoc among genealogists who do not realize the difference.

You and your scources are stongly contradicting what is popularly excepted. That being Filipino losses amounting to 16 thousand killed, with American's suffering 1,500-2000 killed in battle with 2,500-3000 dying of disease, and another 3000 wounded.

"In the last two months of 1899, U.S. casualties in 229 engagements totaled 69 killed and 302 wounded. From January to April 1900, there were 442 encounters, and 130 U.S. soldiers were killed, with 325 wounded. Filipino losses were estimated at 3,227 killed, 694 wounded, and 2,864 captured. From May 1900 to July 1, 1901, American forces suffered 245 killed, 490 wounded, and 138 captured or missing in 1,026 encounters with Filipino forces. American losses after July 1901 were small. Much higher were the number of deaths due to disease."

Despite what your scources say, I stronly believe this is incorrect. In the FIRST encounter betweeen American and Filipino soldiers the American's suffered 60 killed and 225 wounded. you also state that Filipino losses are at 3,000 killed in the middle of the war, when that very well was their losses on the FIRST day of battle! Not to mention at least 1 thousand wounded which dwarfs your 694 wounded. Your telling me that in 228 more engagments the American's lost only 9 killed and 70 wounded? And the Filipinos 227 more killed? With what I've read, and considering how bloody the war actually was, that just dont add up.

Even more baffling is the May 1900-July 1901. In THREE encounters of the guerilla phase the American Military suffered somthing like 200 killed wounded and captured. Those being Pulang Lupa(100 losses), Balangiga(70-78), and Catubig(25 losses). Not even counting the battles mentioned above, in the first 4 monthes of the guerilla phase the American's lost 450 killed and woundedin 442 encounters. In 1 3rd of encounters you've mentioned, the Americans have allready suffered 650-700 losses.

In order for this to add up like your scources state, the Americans would have to suffer 223 more losses in a staggering 576 more encounters! Which is hard to swallow when the American's averaged a loss of 1 killed to 2 wounded for every guerilla skirmish in this war.

Dupuy, Colonel R. Ernest and Baumer, Major General William H., The Little Wars of the United States, Hawthorne Books, New York, 1968.

Scruby, Jack, "Asiatic Colonial Wargames", The Miniature Parade, Volume 11, Number II, October 1968, pp 3-6.

Wolf, Leon, Little Brown Brother, Doubleday, Garden City, 1968.

When we start adding up casualties we have to start with the official US Army reports. Granted that these are just estimates of Filipino losses, they are very exact monthly counts of American casualties. There are no other numbers to work with. Nobody else made independent casualty counts of US losses. It is unwise to say that there was a master ratio that stayed constant during the war. Rjensen 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your ignoring the main point here

My main point was that many Filipino American War dead are listed as Spanish American War dead. Your scources seem to reflect this. Every other scource states American dead at 1000-1500 or as high as 2000. In fact the American War Library states the total number dead at 4,273, not merely 444 dead as you state. Allthough there was a larger number died of disease than actual combat, it was much larger than 444 killed(minus the missing and caputred). That leaves nearly 4,000 dead to disease and that is far to high. Your information is incorrect, and your trying to fight on with questionable information that is simply outweighed and outnumbered by the scources.

sources--yes that is the issue. does anyone know where the number 4,324 American dead comes from? Rjensen 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding references: I deleted a series of contradictory 3rd rate sources that are not based on research. We have much better references already cited in article re casualties. The deleted refs add no information but will confuse reader. Rjensen 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"sources--yes that is the issue. does anyone know where the number 4,324 American dead comes from? Rjensen 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)"

Actually I think it might be 4,234 but I'm not for sure one of the two, but ne way this is widely excepted as the actual number of total dead on the American side. The American War Library among many others also has this as the death toll.

"On January 1, 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo was declared the first President after he killed his opponent"

I don't know where this came from, maybe your confusing Aguinaldo ordering the execution of Andreas Bonifacio, but this was not during an election. Aguinaldo was recognized as the ablest person for the job. He didn't have to kill ne body, it was excepted that he be president. He was their leader after all.

Andrés Bonifacio was the main rival and Aguilaldo had him executed. Well known fact. Has to be included. Aguinaldo was the leader AFTER he overcame the previous leader Andrés Bonifacio, who with Rizal had created the insurgency and was its main leader until Aguinaldo took over in March 1897. [see Brands pp 41-44]. Rjensen 07:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] your edits

Your first paragraph: "On January 1, 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo was declared the first President after he killed his opponent"

This is incorrect. First off, Aguinaldo was proclaimed President 2 YEARS after the execution of Bonifacio. You make it sound as if Aguinaldo was a cold blooded politician who eliminated Bonifacio due to the fact that he was heavy competition. This is terribly WRONG and misleading. and here's why your wrong:

True Bonifacio was the brainchild of the Katipunan and leader of the resistance against the Spanish. However he was not as gifted of a military leader as Aguinaldo was. As Bonifacio suffered defeats, Aguinaldo became more and more victorious, totally liberating Cavite; drawing the attention of the public as Bonifacio faded into the background.

There was then dispute and infighting between Aguinaldo's faction and Bonifacio. The two sides then agree to have an ELECTION in Tejeros, which Aguinaldo WINS by a landslide.

Bonifacio does not accept the new government under Aguinaldo and installs a rival-government.

As countermeasure the government under Aguinaldo orders the arrest at Bonifacio in Limbon. His house gets surrounded. In the following combat his brother is killed and Bonifacio is shot into the arm. Strongly weakened and half starved he is brought on a stretcher to Naik. Here he is taken to a court. Bonifacio is accused of the betrayal of the revolution and of trying to poison Aguinaldo. Bonifacio has hardly rights of self-defence and is condemned to death like his brother Procopio.

President Aguinaldo first hesitates to give the order of execution. He prefers a banishment of Bonifacio. However, his generals press him, not to show no pity and to go on with the execution in order to maintain the peace and the order within the new revolutionary government.

And remember, this is all happening two years BEFORE 1899, you were making it sound like this was all around the same time. Nope, this is in 1897 before even the Spanish American war.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs).

good points. I have added a background section explaining how Aguinaldo got there. Rjensen 18:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions, again

I am concerned with the large amounts of deletions on this page.[4] At least four referenced paragraphs have been deleted. How can we solve this repeating problem?

Signed:Travb 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the deletion have remained. Nice reference system, superior and much easier than the old one I was using.Travb 07:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filippino Deaths

Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#_note-0 explains that although the number of dead is an estimate, it is a reliable and accure to say: est. 250,000 to 1,000,000 civilians died of war, famine, or disease. I researched all of this material exhastively before when an apologist questioned the number of war dead. Boot, Max (April 1, 2002). The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, is the first quote. He is definatly not an "anti-war" author. He spends 3-4 pages justifying and apologising for the Philippine American war. His books always glorify and justify all of America's wars.Travb 07:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted location of battle

I deleted the following:

Recent evidence from the National Historical institute of the Philippines indicates that the Filipino soldier shot by the (said drunk) American soldiers is not in San Juan del Monte, but in present-day Sociego Street in Manila. The National Historical Institute has put a marker there.

I found the author, Revision as of 07:46, 4 February 2005 Matthewprc (Talk | contribs) [5] and will message him asking where he found out this info and to source this. I searched on the net and could find nothing.Travb 07:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Proceed to the said address (Sociego Street corner Silencio Street in Sta. Mesa, Manila), and there you will find the historical marker sculpted by the National Historical Institute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthewprc (talk • contribs).
Please sign your posts Matthewprc, your word is enough for me I guess, everyone here in agreement?Travb 05:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Did he ever add back this info?Travb 01:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] end date of war

I have changed the end date of the war back to 1913, from which it was recently changed. I expect the US Army knew the time period of the war and passed out medals accordingly. See Philippine Campaign Medal Thanks Hmains 03:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The official date was July 4, 1902, announced by Roosevelt. Although not an exact historical analogym, from what I understand, Roosevelt's announcment was similar to the Iraq war and the now infamous "mission accomplished" banner. Maybe you can comprimise and state the official date and the unofficial date.Travb 04:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the enddate is not important. maybe both dates should be included. Travb 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the end date is important: it controls what is or is not included in the article and its category. I agree both dates should be included to cover both bases and to allow us to include the continued fighting that went on. I am not sure that Roosevelt's announcement of the end makes something 'official'; I would be more inclined to think the U.S. military's end date for awarding medals for fighting in the more is more 'official'.

Thanks Hmains 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

The photo I attempted to delete was also being used on Spanish-American War but there the caption said they were Cuban dead. We need to straigten that out before we display the picture with the wrong info.Kevlar67 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles lacking scources?

Why is this article under that? It's scources are on par with any of the other excepted articles, proboboly listing more. There is only one part of this that is not well scourced(I'm looking for it), which is enough of a big deal to list this under the 'articles lacking scources' bit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs).

This is because of the two {{fact}} that I added, it is a template which automatically makes the article fall under "Articles lacking scources". don't be offended--some of the best articles are under this category. Adding {{fact}} in my experience eventually makes the articles better.Travb 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I see, well I've just found the scource for that paragraph. I didn't meen offense, I thought it was renjensen making trouble again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs).
Please sign your name sir. No offense taken. I just want to make this the absolute best article on wikipedia...Travb 23:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] lacking references

Many of the detail articles in the Philippine-American War category (including battles and people) lack any historical source references. This entire set of articles would be greatly improved by having valid references. Thanks Hmains 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lacking bio articles

Many of the articles in the Philippine-American War link to non-extant bio articles, especially bio articles for for Filipinos involved in the war. Writing Filipino bio articles (with references) would greatly help. Thanks Hmains 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hmains, can you give me an example?Travb 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Here is what I found:

General Mariano Trias

Manuel Arellano Remondo

Thomas W. Connell

J.W. Duncan

Datu Uti

Pedro de la Cruz

Stephen Hayt

Aploninar Velez

Maximo Abad

Devereux Shields

Pio Del Pilar

Francisco Carreon

You can check on backlinks from these non-articles to find what articles I found these in. There are also a number of Battle articles in which the Philippine and, even the American, battle commanders are listed as unknown. Thanks Hmains 01:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hmains, I may work on these in the next few weeks.Travb 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Long Road towards NPOV

This is my suggested rewrite for the Origins of the War to make it less POV and more professional:

"After the Treaty of Paris ended the Spanish-American war, the Philippines and several other territories were ceded from Spain to the United States in return for 20 million dollars. The United States then sent 11,000 soldiers to garrison the archipelago while the treaty was being ratified. The Filipinos, who had declared independence from Spain on June 12, 1898, had worked with the Americans in defeating the Spanish during the war. When the peace treaty called for the annexation of the Philippines, the Filipinos felt betrayed and began encircling the city."

Discuss. More suggestions to come. Rob 11:48, 19MAY2006 (UTC)

Suggested replacement for "The Start of the War":

"The first shots of the war were fired on February 4, 1899 in Manila. Tensions were high between the US forces stationed in the city and the Filipinos occupying the trench works surrounding it. When an American soldier spotted a Filipino soldier crossing a bridge into American occupied territory, he opened fire. This started a firefight all along the lines between the two sides and is widely considered to have started the war, though no formal declaration of war was ever made because The United States did not recognize the government of the Philippines and considered it a colony, not a sovereign nation."

I took out the McKinley quotes because no sources are provided and I could find none. Made definite changes to the wording as to 'why' no formal declaration of war occurred to make it less POV. Excluded the part about being able to deny rights to veterans because no source was provided. Rob 16:34, 19MAY2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

Perhaps the location of the background article should be moved to before the Origins of War to make it chronologically accurate. Also, The last sentence where Aguinaldo is declared president....declared president by whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robbini (talk • contribs).

Please be bold. Asking on talk pages usually is fruitless, as I have found personally.Travb 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Original edit Newer edit
Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo joined Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. Lacking a military of his own, Bonifacio allied himself with a rival group. When Aguinaldo's group and this rival force joined forces in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. <ref name="Linn2">Linn, p.5</ref> Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - Bonifacio or Aguinaldo. Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo from the landlorded elite class, joined the Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself known as the Magdalo faction. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. When Aguinaldo's group joined forces with Bonifacio in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. <ref name="Linn2">Linn, p.5</ref> Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - the worker Bonifacio or elite Aguinaldo.
In December of 1897, the futility of the struggle was becoming apparent on both sides. Although Spanish troops were able to defeat insurgents on the battlefield, they could not suppress guerrilla activity. In August, armistice negotiations were opened between Aguinaldo and a new Spanish governor. By mid-December, an agreement was reached in which the governor would pay Aguinaldo the equivalent of US$800,000, and the rebel leader and his government would go into exile. Aguinaldo established himself in Hong Kong, and the Spanish bought themselves time. In December of 1897, the futility of the struggle was becoming apparent on both sides. Although Spanish troops were able to defeat insurgents on the battlefield, they could not suppress guerrilla activity. In August, armistice negotiations were opened between Aguinaldo and a new Spanish governor. By mid-December, an agreement was reached in which the governor would pay Aguinaldo the equivalent of US$800,000, and the rebel leader and his government would go into exile. This was called the Biak na Bato agreement. Aguinaldo established himself in Hong Kong, and the Spanish bought themselves time. He soon denounced the Revolution and declared Filipino combatants to be bandits. However, Filipino revolutionaries continued guerilla warfare without Aguinaldo against Spain.
When the United States declared war on the Spanish, Aguinaldo, backed by the American military, resumed the revolution. In a matter of months, Aguinaldo and his resistance fighters conquered nearly all of the Spanish-held ground within the Philippines. With the exception of Manila, which was completely surrounded by Aguinaldo and his rebel army of 12,000, the Filipinos controlled the Philippines. Aguinaldo and his guerillas also turned over 15,000 Spanish prisoners to the Americans, offering them valuable intelligence. When the United States declared war on the Spanish, Aguinaldo, backed by the American military, returned to the islands to reclaim the Revolution. In a matter of months, Aguinaldo and his resistance fighters conquered nearly all of the Spanish-held ground within the Philippines. With the exception of Manila, which was completely surrounded by Aguinaldo and his rebel army of 12,000, the Filipinos controlled the Philippines. Aguinaldo and his guerillas also turned over 15,000 Spanish prisoners to the Americans, offering them valuable intelligence.
By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish. By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.

[edit] Comments

  • Please cite all additions, with a page number if available.

[edit] Paragraph one:

Original edit Newer edit
Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo joined Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. Lacking a military of his own, Bonifacio allied himself with a rival group. When Aguinaldo's group and this rival force joined forces in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. <ref name="Linn2">Linn, p.5</ref> Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - Bonifacio or Aguinaldo. Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo from the landlorded elite class, joined the Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself known as the Magdalo faction. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. When Aguinaldo's group joined forces with Bonifacio in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. <ref name="Linn2">Linn, p.5</ref> Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - the worker Bonifacio or elite Aguinaldo.
  1. This paragraph is quoting Linn, p.5. The new edits are not on Linn, p.5. I can type up the exact wording of Lynn, if necessary, but it is available on Amazon or Google. Any changes to a sourced section needs to be sourced, otherwise readers will feel that the new information is on Lynn, page 5, when it is not.
  2. Grammatical errors: from the landlorded elite class is incorrect grammar. From the landowning upper class would be more grammatically correct. But again, this does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
  3. Confusing edit: From: When Aguinaldo's group and this rival force joined forces in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader. to When Aguinaldo's group joined forces with Bonifacio in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Aguinaldo did not join forces with Bonifacio, Aguinaldo joined forces with Bonifacio group. And again, this does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
  4. known as the Magdalo faction. This does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
  5. the worker Bonifacio or elite Aguinaldo. These are discriptive adjectives which attempt to show that Aguinaldo was rich and Bonifacio was "one of us" a peoples person. Since it has already been established above, using sourced material, that Bonifacio was poor, the reader does not need to be reminded of this again.

[edit] Paragraph two

He soon denounced the Revolution and declared Filipino combatants to be bandits. However, Filipino revolutionaries continued guerilla warfare without Aguinaldo against Spain.

Response to claim this is factually incorrect:

factually correct per further readings below - Benevolent Assimilation

Please kindly explain what "further readings below - Benevolent Assimilation". Aguinaldo denounced the revolution when he was caught by Americans, but I have no recollection that he did the same thing with the Spanish. Did you mean the Americans?

I added all the sources citing Benevolent Assimilation, and the vast majority of all of the other footnotes too. I have Benevolent Assimilation right here. It is available to view on Amazon.com. Can you tell me what page you are relying on? Or what section of Philippine-American War you are relying on? I plan on rereading all applicaple sections as soon as I finish talking with you. I have no doubt that you are 110% correct, but this addition needs to be verifiable.

[edit] Paragraph three

Original edit Newer edit
When the United States declared war on the Spanish, Aguinaldo, backed by the American military, resumed the revolution. }

The original sounds more encyclopedic. The new edit sounds very patriotic. Aguinaldo was not the only Filipino leader involved in the revoltion.

This is a minor issue, and I would happy to add back this edit if needed.

[edit] Paragraph four

Original edit Newer edit
By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish. By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.

Please add {{fact}} tags or cite the deleted comment on the talk page to avoid revert wars. If no one responds within a week, delete the unsourced sentence. This avoids revert wars.

This sentence was added here Revision as of 22:17, 11 April 2006.

The footnote was incorrectly attributed from this Revision as of 18:52, 9 April 2006, so the footnote does not apply to this text.

The original footnoted text:

On July 6, 1892, Andrés Bonifacio, a former peddler of lower-class origins, founded a secret society known as the Kataastaasan Kagalanggalang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan ("The Highest and Most Honorable Society of the Sons of the Country"), or Katipunan. In 1897 Emilio Aguinaldo seized control of the movement and executed Bonifacio. In December 1897 Aguinaldo agreed to the Spanish terms, offering him a lucrative pension to leave this islands. With forty of his associates he came down from the mountains and set sail for Hong Kong. When the United States declared war he met with an junion American diplomat (the Consul at Singapore) and asked permission to return. Admiral George Dewey decided to allow him to the islands on May 19. Admiral Dewey explained that he had promised nothing regarding the future. "From my observation of Aguinaldo and his advisers I decided that it would be unwise to co-operate with him or his adherents in an official manner.... In short, my policy was to avoid any entangling alliance with the insurgents, while I appreciated that, pending the arrival of our troops, they might be of service." [Brands 46]

Signed:Travb (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] Talk page deletion

Another user deleted the following from the talk page: [6] Travb (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/Talk%7EPhilippine-American_War_d3f9.html"