Talk:Philippine–American War

Moro Rebellion, Republic of Zamboanga not part of Philippine American War

Going by WP:LEAD and the current content in that section and the article body here, the Moro Rebellion is part of the Aftermath. It does overlap the war period very slightly date-wise but, aside from that, that conflict was between the rebels and the post-war Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.

I'm not sure re the Republic of Zamboanga but I think that any relevance mentioned should be clarified and supported. What was the connection, if any, of Vincente Alvarez with the Philippine Republic?

I've moved Arthur MacArthur Jr. down in the infobox list of U.S. commanders to better reflect his role during the period of this war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The Philippine-American War is considered to be a wider conflict that encompasses Aguinaldo's rebellion, the post-war insurgency, and Moro Rebellion, according to a number of modern consenses by historians, namely Daniel Immerwahr, Clayton D. Laurie, and Filipino historian Samuel K. Tan. This is reflected on the Moro Rebellion page which states that the rebellion was part of the wider war. Unless you find a source that explicitly states that the post-1902 conflicts were not a part of the war, said conflicts should remain as listed in the infobox. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:44FB:538D:3F6D:2AA8 (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. Here's one: Wood, Leonard. "The Moro Rebellion". The Theodore Roosevelt Center at Dickson State University. Retrieved August 16, 2023. The Moro Rebellion (1901-1913) occurred after the conclusion of the Philippine-American War and involved sporadic confrontations between the Muslim Filipinos living in the southern part of the Philippines and the American soldiers there to oversee the transition from Spanish rule to U.S. oversight.

However, it is not the mission of Wikipedia to develop a POV position on issues and selectively cite sources in support of that POV position. One of the foundational policies in WP is the policy on Neutral Point of View; please read at least the first paragraph of the section of that policy headed Due and undue weight (shortcut: WP:DUE). Do reliable sources with differing viewpoints on this exist? Yes, they do. Does this difference in viewpoints have sufficient topical weight for elaboration in this article? Probably. Is the issue currently elaborated sufficiently? I think so -- you clearly disagree.

Perhaps a paragraph should be added to the article explicitly calling attention to the fact that this article covers the period of officially declared war between the United States following the cession by Spain and the nascent First Philippine Republic, that conflicts following the end of this declared conflict and after the dissolution of that proclaimed but unrecognized government should be included in the topic, and that these conflicts are covered in other Wikipedia articles. I don't thinnk such a paragraph is necessary, but differences between editors over such questions are resolved in Wikipedia according to consensus among interested editors. I'm calling here for other interested editors to weigh in on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This source does not appear to have been written by a historian and is definitely not from a book or journal so I wouldn't say it has strong grounding. Furthermore I feel like my last post in this subject was worded a bit poorly; this page covers the wider conflict in the Philippines which includes the post-war insurgencies in detail, so the infobox should reflect that as it has done so since 2009 as you stated. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:9D8A:79BD:FFA3:189 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't follow all of that. However, the MOS:LEADSENTENCE begins: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.". The lead sentenxce of this article currently reads: "The Philippine–American War, known alternatively as the Philippine Insurrection, Filipino–American War, or Tagalog Insurgency, was fought between the First Philippine Republic and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 2, 1902." Taking those quotes roughly at face value, the article shouldn't focus on events following 1902. I seem to be just [a troll] here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Text of the Aguinaldo August 3, 1900 decree

In this edit, I added a bit and linked this image of Aguinaldo's August 3, 1900 decree. The text in the image is handwritten in the English language. I would like to include a transcription of the text either on the image page or in this article (preferably the former), but I haven't been able to read it all. I could ask for help with this in several places but, of those, I'm guessing that this is probably the one most likely to produce results. Most of the text is pretty readable, but there are a few places where neither myself nor my wife could make it out. We had saved a rough partial transcription, but that seems to have been lost. Help here would be appreciated. 17:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Filipino governmental situation following Aguinaldo's capture

Both the de-facto and de-jure situations re the continuance of the Philippine Republic government following Aguinaldo's capture need clarification here and in other articles. I have added some content at a point where such info needs mention in this edit about that, but this content probably contradicts other related material here and in other articles. This needs further editorial work with WP:DUE, WP:V in mind, probably starting with the insertion of Contradictory inline and {{Contradicts other}} templates at appropriate points in this and other articles. I wish I had the time and the available sources to dig further into this now, but I don't. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that my attempted citation of "Binay seeks help from historians for overlooking Malvar as 2nd RP president". taga-ilog-news. October 24, 2011., which I found cited regarding this in anothr article, was rejected by an edit filter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

added info

I see in Villegas, Bernard (n.d.). "Revisiting the Philippine-American War". an assertion saying, "Based on the succession decrees that Aguinaldo himself issued, General Malvar would take the presidency of the republic", supported there by quotes apparently taken from Abaya, D.; Karganilla, B.L.M.; Villegas, E.M. (1998). Miguel Malvar and the Philippine Revolution: A Biography. Miguel Malvar (MM) Productions..

From the U.S. perspective on the ending date of the war, I see "The Philippine-American War, 1899–1902". Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. n.d. President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed a general amnesty and declared the conflict over on July 4, 1902, although minor uprisings and insurrections against American rule periodically occurred in the years that followed.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Assertions of German support for the Philippine side

There have lately been a number of edits to the article adding and removing content related to this subtopic and arguing in edit summaries about what sources provide acceptable support and what do not. That should be sorted out in discussion here -- not by edit war article revisions.

I haven't dug into this much myself and I'm limited to online sources, but I may see what I can find as time allows. A quick google today did turn up this book, described there as "Angel Velasco Shaw, Luis H. Francia NYU Press, 2002 - History - 468 pages". The section titled A CLASH OF INTERESTS: German and American Territorial Ambitions beginning on page 23 seems to have some topically relevant information that might be citeable in support of article assertions on this subtopic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

From Template:Infobox military conflict documentation "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – ... The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated (see discussion)." Specific RfC is here. Now, if Germany did provide Philipines with actual material support, then that could be worth mentioning somewhere in article main text (not infobox), but such contentious claim would still need a better source than a newspaper article from 1899. Plenty of academic literature has been published about the conflict.--Staberinde (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Official end of the war

The lead section claims, "...the war was officially declared ended by the US on July 1, 1902." This proposition is problematic. Where in the text of the "Philippine Organic Act" does it explicitly declare an end to hostilities? The passage in the U.S. Congress of a unilaterally drafted bill is not equivalent to an official proclamation of the end of armed conflict. A peace treaty between adversaries or a proclamation by the Commander-in-chief of the winning side would each constitute an "official declaration" that armed conflict has ended. The official end of this particular war should either be April 16, 1902 as proclaimed by a President of the Philippines or July 4, 1902 as proclaimed by a President of the United States. Chino-Catane (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have revised this problematic text here. Your changes were an improvement. The text of the Philippine Organic Act (1902) can be seen here. See also this news article which quotes a presidential proclamation and a general order in connection with this and provides information and analysis related to all this. I see that there is also article content related to this that needs review in United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands § Official end to war and the lead para of the Philippine Organic Act (1902) article. I'll not edit these for now to avoid bumping heads with you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)