Talk:Philippine-American War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philippine-American War article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
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.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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

That's a remarkably biased recount. 1. The Filipinos were glad to have U.S. help in 1898. That's certainly true, but unless you want to argue that France had the right to take the United States as a colony in 1783, it's also irrelevant. 2. It was the Filipino Army of Liberation, led by Aguinaldo, that defeated the Spanish Army throughout the Philippines, not the U.S. When the American arrived in Manila, the Filipinos were already surrounding the city. They let the U.S. take over part of the line around the city. 3. The start of the war can be laid to both sides as tensions throughout the fall of 1898 were caused by incidents on both sides. 4. The promise of independence remains controversial, but the only witness to the conversation between Aguinaldo and Spencer Pratt, the U.S. consul who made the promise, supported Aguinaldo's version (having said that, he was an English translator who later worked for Aguinaldo, so his version is suspect as well).
History is easier to do and more accurate if you don't spend time bending over backward to make one side the "good guys" and one side the "bad guys." The rush of blood to the head is less, as well. Silbey 19 March 2007

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

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

[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: [1] 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

[edit] Moved WP:AWW statment to talk page

I moved this to the talk page:

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

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

[edit] Interesting facts

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Information removed

The following has just been removed:

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

The Caviteños voted their own Emilio Aguinaldo President in absentia (he was actually in the battlefield at the time). Bonifacio, due to the lack of a power base in the province, was voted Director of the Interior. The Magdiwang men, who had favored him and the Katipunan earlier in the meeting at Imus, did not vote for him either for President or Vice-President. He was instead given the minor post of Direcor of the Interior. The Katipunan as a government was thus legally abolished and replaced by the Cavite-led government, later to be called Republica Filipina (Republic of the Philippines), the first by that name. [1][2][3][4]

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

"I, as chairman of this assembly and as President of the Supreme Council of the Katipunan, as all of you do not deny, declare this assembly dissolved, and I annul all that has been approved and resolved."[4]

Bonifacio then set out to install a rival government several days later, drawing up documents of his own. As a countermeasure, the government under Aguinaldo ordered the arrest of Bonifacio. In the following skirmish, his house was surrounded, his brothers were killed and Bonifacio was wounded in the arm and in the neck, though eyewitness accounts on Bonifacio's side attest that he did not fight back himself.[citation needed] He and his other brother were captured. Weak and lying on a stretcher, he was brought to Naik, where he stood trial, accused of the betrayal of the revolution and trying to poison Aguinaldo. [4] [5][6]

Bonifacio was found guilty of treason and sedition and recommended to be executed. Aguinaldo commuted the sentence to deportation on May 8, 1897, but two generals, both former supporters of Bonifacio, upon learning of this, persuaded him to withdraw the order to preserve unity among the revolutionaries. They were supported by other leaders. Andres Bonifacio and his brother were executed on May 10, 1897 by a firing squad at Mt. Nagpatong.[7][8][9][6]

Some historians such as Renato Constantino have called the trial a farce and a foregone conclusion, since the jury was made up of Aguinaldo's men, the charge of conspiracy was most likely fabricated and Bonifacio was indeed an obstacle to the Cavite elite's road to power. In their eyes, he was guilty of treason and sedition, though not to the greater cause of the Revolution, as Constantino argues. In Constantino's view, Bonifacio was totally outmaneuvered. Co-patriots of the Revolution regarded this an ugly blot laid at Aguinaldo's door, though in fairness Aguinaldo originally wanted them banished instead, but changed his mind due to the advice of Bonifacio's former generals.[10]


end of removed material

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

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

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

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

[edit] POV

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

reality has a liberal bias.--BMF81 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Don't be ignorant. 74.212.17.148 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

I was pretty startled to read this. I have written a whole chapter on the war in my book, The Savage Wars of Peace, and I have never once heard that the U.S. was guilty of genocide. How could it have entirely escaped my attention? There is, needless to say, not a scintilla of evidence that Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt made any attempt to wipe out the population of the Philippines. There is no doubt that a lot of Filipinos died in the course of the war, but most of those deaths were the result of disease, not American bullets. In my book, I cite the generally accepted casualty totals: 4,234 American dead and, on the other side, 16,000 Filipinos killed in battle and another 200,000 civilians killed mainly by disease and famine. My sources for these estimates are books written by William Thaddeus Sexton, an historian writing in the 1930’s, and two more recent accounts written by Stanley Karnow and Walter LaFeber. Neither Karnow nor LaFeber is exactly an American imperialist; in fact, both are well-known liberals. Yet their casualty counts are seven times lower than those claimed by Wikipedia, and they make no mention of any genocide. Where does the Wikipedia figure come from? The footnote refers to an online essay, “U.S. Genocide in the Philippines” by E. San Juan Jr., posted on an obscure website. The author is described as follows: “E. San Juan, Jr. was recently Fulbright Professor of American Studies at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, and visiting professor of literature and cultural studies at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan, Republic of China.” Not exactly a pedigree that instantly screams out that he has any special expertise on the Philippine War. In his short essay (1,046 words), E. San Juan Jr. concedes that his claims of genocide and of 1.4 million dead do not come from any mainstream sources. He writes: “Among historians, only Howard Zinn and Gabriel Kolko have dwelt on the ‘genocidal’ character of the catastrophe.” But even these ultra-left-wing “revisionist” historians (who also have no expertise in the Philippine War) have, in his telling, cited no more than 600,000 dead Filipinos. So whence the figure of 1.4 million? According to Mr. San Juan, “The first Filipino scholar to make a thorough documentation of the carnage is the late Luzviminda Francisco in her contribution to The Philippines: The End of An Illusion (London, 1973).” I confess to never having heard of Ms. Francisco (whose works are cataloged online by neither the Library of Congress nor the New York Public Library), but Amazon does contain a link for one of her books. It’s called Conspiracy for Empire: Big business, corruption, and the politics of imperialism in America, 1876-1907 and it was published in 1985 by something called the Foundation for Nationalist Studies, which doesn’t have a web page (or at least none that I could discover). I am, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by the historical evidence gathered here to accuse the U.S. of having killed 1.4 million people in an attempted genocide. This is not the kind of finding that would be accepted for a second by any reputable scholar, regardless of political orientation. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/contentions/index.php/boot/1061


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

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

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

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

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

I agree. The scholar's research should be presented, but we shouldn't be including a fringe view of the conflict in the first paragraph. Blchrist 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree with 2 and 3, disagree with 1 (figures), please see the massive amount of citations for these figures. Please dont throw around labels, it only reveals your own POV. Good points, thanks.Travb (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] this article has been molested. not by me!

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

[edit] Reorganisation

It is my opinion that the order in which the information is presented currently is not logical; without changing any actual information, I am going to merge the 'origins' section into the 'war begins' section, which will be made into a level two headline. This will present the facts of the war in chronological order, and increase the readability of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.22.214 (talk • contribs) 15:26, July 13, 2007

[edit] Colonization/annexation/control

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mere widespread use in Philippine society of "colonial mentality", which in Philippine context is the love or appreciation of things or products that come from America over Filipino-made goods, is evident of the fact that the United States colonized the Philippines. For all intents and purposes, when America bought the Philippines from Spain (Treaty of Paris), the Philippines became a colony of the US even if you say only for a short time (it's arguable whether America brought democracy or liberation to the Philippines versus colonizing it). Berserkerz Crit 19:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I find it quite odd that widespread immigration to a colony is considered a factor in whether or not a country was indeed colonized. While this may be true for the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the mere presence of a large number of citizens from the former colonizing power is not a factor at all. Consider the context of Africa as an example. --Sky Harbor 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] POV

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

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


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

[edit] First Shots of the War

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

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

There are no other views to the best of my knowledge. Everyone agrees an American shot first.
 -It's the semantics of it.  Saying "American agression" started the war puts a slant on it that is quite different than an american sentry shooting a phillippino soldier he mistakenly thought was an insurgent.

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

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

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

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

Eh? It's made clear that both Spain and the U.S. ignored Aguinaldo... the declarations of independence and the First Philippine Republic are attested by lots of sources, including a constitution, and photos... an U.S. independent government was obviously contested by Britain, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
 -It's more an issue of semantics, I guess.  The tone of the article suggests the US maliciously ignored the sovereignty of the Aguinaldo government to avoid having to issue a formal declaration of war.  In reality they genuinely did not recognize the government and believed that the US government had sovereignty over the Phillippines.

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

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

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

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

[edit] POV Issues

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

Yes, the article smells of POV. WP:POV says, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If there are balancing sources out there reporting from another POV than the sources cited, the POV differences should be covered in the article and sources cited. -- Boracay Bill 06:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, nationalist historiography is now standard for Philippine history books... and some of the American sources (esp. contemporary or near-contemporary ones) may well be anti-Filipino, so it cuts both ways. Filipino coverage probably goes more in depth and detail concerning the dynamics of the war (being the invaded side and all). Anyway, the leanings of such historians like Renato Constantino are acknowledged, and I used him for negative stuff about Filipino leaders (calling their own troops bandits). All statements using Filipino sources are cited. Is the anon saying the article needs input from a "G.I. Joe" historian in favor of the war? Good luck finding one; we all work with what we have. Uthanc 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed uncited source

I removed the following:

The McKinley administration subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an “outlaw bandit”, and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Calling the war the Philippine Insurrection emphazised the American view of the conflict as a rebellion against their lawful government, [11] and it enabled the American government to avoid having to pay veterans benefits.

Here is the edit history of this paragraph:

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


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

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

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

[edit] Veterans benefits

I found a source:

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

Miller, page 272.

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

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

Should I add back the sentence like this?:

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

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

[edit] Asia's First Republic

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

Sources:

Condorhero 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Additional Section - US Civil Policies

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

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

208.74.231.24 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] media coverage of this article

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

[edit] Trivia?

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

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

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

[edit] Reversion of unsourced edits

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

  • the insertion of "seemingly have" is nonsense.
  • the insertion of "(no one truly died of war, the surrender of the Spaniards was agreed upon on the morning of that day)" is refuted by this, which says: " The U.S. Asiatic Squadron under George Dewey was ordered to sail from its Hong Kong base to destroy the Spanish fleet then in the Philippines. In one morning the guns of Dewey's squadron completely destroyed the Spanish ships anchored in Manila Bay. The Spanish suffered 381 casualties, the Americans fewer than 10. Manila later surrendered and was occupied by U.S. troops in August. The battle established the U.S. as a major naval power."
  • the insertion of "and it was merely hours before the Spaniards in Intramuros surrendered." would be interesting, if a supporting source had been provided.
  • the insertion of "but instead of the expected Filipino flag, an American flag rose" needs amplification regarding whose expectations these were and how the expectations came about, and it needs a supporting source regarding the raising of the American flag.
  • the bit about "and hence started the phase in which the Americans took away the rightfully deserved independence of the Filipinos." is WP:POV, and does not belong in this article. -- Boracay Bill 07:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I support this revision whole heartedly, nice catch User:Wtmitchell. Users, please source all additions. Travb (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spurious reference

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

[edit] Apparent error

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Moved from American Empire

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

A leader and founding member of the League was Mark Twain, who defended its views in the following manner:

“ I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. „

—Mark Twain, New York Herald, Oct. 15, 1900.

On January 20, 1899, President McKinley appointed the First Philippine Commission (the Schurman Commission), a five-person group headed by Dr. Jacob Schurman, president of Cornell University, to investigate conditions in the islands and make recommendations. In the report that they issued to the president the following year, the commissioners acknowledged Filipino aspirations for independence; they declared, however, that the Philippines was not ready for it. Specific recommendations included the establishment of civilian government as rapidly as possible (the American chief executive in the islands at that time was the military governor), including establishment of a bicameral legislature, autonomous governments on the provincial and municipal levels, and a system of free public elementary schools.[12]

The Second Philippine Commission (the Taft Commission), appointed by McKinley on March 16, 1900, and headed by William Howard Taft, was granted legislative as well as limited executive powers. Between September 1900 and August 1902, it issued 499 laws. A judicial system was established, including a Supreme Court, and a legal code was drawn up to replace antiquated Spanish ordinances. A civil service was organized. The 1901 municipal code provided for popularly elected presidents, vice presidents, and councilors to serve on municipal boards. The municipal board members were responsible for collecting taxes, maintaining municipal properties, and undertaking necessary construction projects; they also elected provincial governors. In July 1901 the Philippine Constabulary was organized as an archipelago-wide police force to control brigandage and deal with the remnants of the insurgent movement. After military rule was terminated on July 4, 1901, the Philippine Constabulary gradually took over from United States army units the responsibility for suppressing guerrilla and bandit activities.[12]

From the very beginning, United States presidents and their representatives in the islands defined their colonial mission as tutelage: preparing the Philippines for eventual independence. Except for a small group of "retentionists," the issue was not whether the Philippines would be granted self-rule, but when and under what conditions. Thus political development in the islands was rapid and particularly impressive in light of the complete lack of representative institutions under the Spanish. The Philippine Organic Act of July 1902 stipulated that, with the achievement of peace, a legislature would be established composed of a lower house, the Philippine Assembly, which would be popularly elected, and an upper house consisting of the Philippine Commission, which was to be appointed by the president of the United States.[12]

The Jones Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1916 to serve as the new organic law in the Philippines, promised eventual independence and instituted an elected Philippine senate. The Tydings-McDuffie Act (officially the Philippine Independence Act; Public Law 73-127) approved on March 24, 1934 provided for self-government of the Philippines and for Filipino independence (from the United States) after a period of ten years. World War II intervened, bringing the Japanese occupation between 1941 and 1945. In 1946, the Treaty of Manila (1946) between the governments of the U.S. and the Republic of the Philippines provided for the recognition of the independence of the Republic of the Philippines and the relinquishment of American sovereignty over the Philippine Islands.

[edit] First shots

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

I think "universally accepted" is true for the Filipino universe. I've been trying to confirm this independently and have had problems finding sources (I'm working from Boracay island, and am limited to online sources and what books I happen to personally have handy). The incident occurred on 4 Feb 1899. Dean Worcester's detailed history written in 1914 mentions it, but does not name Grayson. I'm particularly interested in where and when the first mention of Grayson's name appeared, and what supporting sources there were for mentioning him, and I have not been able to track that down.
You can see what I've been able to find so far here.
Also, the location of the incident has recently been revised. see this.
I've recently been doing some heavy editing to the History of the Philippines (1898–1946) article, which has some info related to this. You might want to take a look at that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muslims???

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

I can't explain it. I've tagged it {{off-topic-other|M1911 pistol}} -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Moros (Muslims) the Americans encountered during the Moro uprising (generally considered a part of the Philippine-American War) would often practice what is known as juramentado. A male Moro would shave all hair from his body, wear nothing but a loin-cloth, tie twine around the upper arms and legs (to cut off blood circulation and numb the pain of wounds) and have his undertaking blessed by an imam. He would then run amok, attacking an American unit, trying to kill as many soldiers as he could before being gunned down. The Americans found out that the .38 caliber revolver they carried did not have the stopping power to immediately kill an attacking juramentado. This was allegedly the impetus for the design of the more powerful .45 caliber model 1911 Colt pistol and the adoption of its larger bore round. — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Feedback 02:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)