Talk:Philippine-American War/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive covers discussion from 2005 through May 20, 2006. Discussion was placed in this archive as it appeared in the main talk page and thus may not be in chronological order.

Talk archives for Philippine-American War (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3 >	2 >>

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

nominate?

Could I nominate this article? -Isao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.167.18 (talk • contribs)

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)

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 Union 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)

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)

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 [1]. 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)

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.

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)

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)

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! —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Deletions, again

I am concerned with the large amounts of deletions on this page.[2] 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)

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)

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) [3] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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.~~

Comments

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

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.

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.
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.
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.
known as the Magdalo faction. This does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
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.

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.

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.

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)

Categories: Talk archives