Talk:History of the Philippines

Changes to lead section

This edit made some changes to the lead section. I think that the tightening up of the the lead section by elimination of details which are covered later on in the article. I disagree with the replacement of "However" with "Despite American promises to the Filipino revolutionaries". I have reverted this, reasoning as follows:

1. AFAICT, it is disputed whether or not such promises were made and, if they were, who made the promises any by what authority.
2. If the claimed promises are to be mentioned in the lead section, or anywhere in this article, the fact of the dispute about those promises needs to be mentioned as well.

Some details about the points in dispute can be seen in Philippine_Revolution#American_Intervention. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of two edits by 121.127.7.68

I've reverted two recent unexplained anonymous edits.

The first would have changed a long-established section name from American territorial period (1898–1946) to American rule (1900–1946). That might arguable have some merit, but the initial sentence of the section speaks of events prior to the advent of American rule.

The second changed that initial sentence of the section from "Filipinos initially saw their relationship with the United States as that of two nations joined in a common struggle against Spain." to "The Filipinos initially sought the support of the United States in their struggle for secession from Spain.", leaving the cite of Lacsamana 1990, p. 135 in place unchanged. I don't happen to have that book, but I suspect that if page 135 did support the earlier assertion, it probably does not support the edited assertion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

lv:Filipīnu vēsture

Please, can somebody add lv:Filipīnu vēsture. I can't do it. Thank you! --Treisijs (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

British Rule

The recent vandalism of this section by $antander has been reversed.

Although the British only occupied Manila and Cavite and some small areas around, the British controlled Manila Bay and the government. After the short siege of Manila, the Spanish government of the Philippines surrendered and formally ceded the whole of the Philippines to the British.

Legally, the British ruled the Philippines, even though the only oidor outside Manila, Don Simon Anda y Salazar, was very active in Pangasinan resisting British occupation.

It might be considered an unhappy fact that the British managed to take over the government of the Philippines from the Spanish. And although it was only for about 18 months, and in the context of the Seven Years War, it nevertheless is a very relevant fact for Philippines history.

Gubernatoria (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The even more recent vandalism by $antander has again been reversed for the following reasons: 1. The Spanish Navy was not defeated. Spanish land forces were defeated. 2. Arandia was the Royal Governor of the Philippines, not commander of the Spanish Navy wherever. 3. The archbishop was Lieutenant Governor, not Lieutenant general. 4. Not all parts of what is now called the Philippines was under Spanish rule. Only the Spanish Philippines were Spanish. The Sultanate of Sulu, for instance, was not under Spanish rule, but is now part of the Philippines. 5. Archbishop Rojo was acting governor of the Philippines, not just Manila. He surrendered the whole of the Spanish Philippines to the British. 6. Spanish Rule devolved to the British by written terms of the Spanish surrender. 7. The British legally ruled the (Spanish) Philippines by right of conquest and the Spanish terms of surrender. These facts are referenced and available in the cited passages. The recent edits by $antander are unreferenced, and some are plainly nonsensical.

Gubernatoria (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary

$antander, if you are genuine, please get your dictionary out and use it before you "change words". The coat of arms goes on the standard (flag), not on the country. Gubernatoria (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

$antander, has once more vandalised the British Rule section. He has once more changed all the dates from British format to US format. The British format was the original format for this section of the article, so $antander is in breach of wikipedia language guidelines. Do not do it again $antander or you will be reported for multiple vandalism. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

$antander, changed the caption for the Spanish Battle standard to read Coat of arms of Manila were at the corners of the Cross of Burgundy in the Philippine Islands. Prior to his edit the caption read Coat of arms of Manila were at the corners of the Cross of Burgundy in the Philippine standard. The Cross of Burgundy was on the flag NOT on the country. His edit was nonsensical. But today he again changed the caption and justified it by saying the flag was the coat of arms of the entire islands. philippines was new spain. Anyone who looks up New Spain in wikipedia will see that the Philippines was NEVER New Spain. Is this multiple vandalism or just utter carelessness by $antander ? Gubernatoria (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

At 02:19, 2 December 2008 $antander again vandalised the article. He has been repeatedly warned. Since this is a repeated violation for the same thing, after repeated warnings, I request administration to bar him from editing this article again. Administration is also invited to consider all his other recent "corrections" in light of this latest action. Gubernatoria (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

At 06:17, 2 December 2008 $antander once again vandalised the article. He has been informed that wikipedia policy is not to change the original version of english from British to US, or vice versa. His 'corrections' imply the British standard of the original contribution (by me) is wrong. This is contrary to wikipedia policy as I understand it. He has been notified of this but persists in his repeated vandalism, and insists he has not breach wikipedia policy. He has been reported for vandalism but is still persisting. Would an administrator please intervene. Gubernatoria (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the governing consideration here should be consistency throughout the article. See WP:ENGVAR (particularly the Consistency within articles and the Strong national ties to a topic subsections there) and Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Full date formatting (particularly the Format consistency subsection there). Overall, this article has, IMHO, stronger national ties to America than to Britain—arguing for standardization on American vs. British standards of spelling and date formatting. A separate article on British rule in the Philippines (1762-1764) might be argued to have stronger ties to Britain. A differently-slanted article on The Philippines under British rule (1762-1764) might be argued to lack those ties. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Boracay Bill, dates in Philippine-related articles should be in US format. TheCoffee (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Philippine History Page And All Associated Articles need a Radical Overhaul

It's the New Year and tons of new historical states and various archeological findings have been discovered about the Philippines recently, pushing the limits and breaking molds of traditional information. This new information is suddenly and haphazardly inserted to a structural framework that doesnt sync with it at all! This renders the current version of Philippine history moot and outdated. It's time for a radical overhaul.

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of the Philippines

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of the Philippines's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "encarta":

• From Philippines: Steinberg, David Joel (2007). "Philippines". Encarta. http://encarta.msn.com/text_761558570___0/Philippines.html. 
• From Palawan: MSN Encarta: Palawan. Accessed September 05, 2008.
• From Manila: MSN Encarta: Manila. Accessed September 06, 2008.
• From Communism: Colton, Timothy J. (2007). "Communism". Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572241/Communism.html. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the creators of AnomieBOT for this. I couldn't find this in Encarta so I've replaced that Ref with a Ref citing an alternative supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos in the British Rule section

Those photos is nowhere near to what actually happened... its more like self-promotion and I would like to suggest for its deletion peads (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, since the Philippine government sign in the photo says the postern is the one which Simón de Anda y Salazar used to escape Fort Santiago with half the treasury, so as to organise and promote resistance to the official surrender of the Spanish Philippines to the British. I suppose you could be right that the Philippine government is promoting itself since it owns the fort and the postern and charges an entrance fee there. Gubernatoria (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the photos should be deleted. Perhaps replacement photos without the young man featured in these could be reinserted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh... As regards historical accuracy, I've added a cite to the article supporting the general background. As far as the details go, I think we should follow WP:AGF unless and until a reliable source refuting the details asserted in the sign can be cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Idea accepted. Depersonalised photo inserted in lieu. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

POV Issues in the Philippine-American War section

The enlarged illustrations appear to have been intentionally superimposed to give an impression that America was the most cruel colonial power in the Philippines -a common Anti-American mantra or hate campaign among communists in the Philippines. You cannot see the same tenor towards Spain and Japan here in this article. Spanish and Japanese atrocities are at most described at a minimum. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed misleading and irrelevant image that properly belongs to another article

The image portraying Jacob H. Smith's order is quiet problematic. First, it is misleading as it tends to project to the reader that killing children was the official and prevailing U.S. policy at that time, which is not. The alleged order only came from the mouth of a single officer and purports to a single incident which was never officially sanctioned nor given any official approval. This is evidenced by the fact that subsequent to the alleged events, court martial proceedings were directed against those who committed the alleged acts. Second, the image is irrelevant because nowhere in the text of the section is the incident specifically described. Furthermore, an article has already been written for that purpose (Balangiga massacre). It is there where the image should find utmost relevance. -Thinkinggecko (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The image was restored in this edit with an edit summary of "Restore image. No consensus for removal." I don't see any tie-in for the image content in the prose of this section. A smaller-sized version of this image is present in Philippine–American War#War crimes, which is linked as a {{main}} article in this section. I think that the inclusion of this image there is much more appropriate than the inclusion here. Given the brevity of the summary style Philippine-American War section prose in this article, I think that the inclusion of the image here gives undue weight to its content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Wtmitchell. Images must be reflective of what the section says. Since the section purports to be a summary of the Philippine American War, images used must be descriptive of that summary. In this particular case, it is not. Rather, it only points to a single incident which does not reflect the over-all nature of the war itself. It misleads the reader into thinking, that killing children above ten years old was the general and over-all direction of the war. Thinkinggecko (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we now have a consensus? To other editors, comments are invited. If nobody objects in the next 7 days, I'll take the aforementioned discussion as the consensus for this matter and proceed to remove the image accordingly. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Therebeing no additional points raised, I'm taking the aforementioned discussion as the consensus for this matter. I shall proceed to remove the subject image. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Aztec mercenaries? Kind of biased dont you think? In legitimate encyclopedias like World Book, Britanica, etc. I've never encountered articles giving to much adjective to a noun such as this article in wikipedia. Spaniards are not called mercenaries and natives/aborigines are not called barbarians.

Reversion. Let's talk.

I've reverted this edit, which had an edit summary of "Removed out of context, irrelevant racist ramblings against Spain and added President McKinley's statements". The edit may have some merit, but it has been applied too boldly and with too much POV. Let's talk about which of the removed ramblings are racist and how so, which ones are perceived to have been taken out of context, and in what context they should be considered.

Also, re the McKinley statement, I'll point out that the context in which it was delivered, prior to the beginning of the Spanish-American War, was as follows:

Of the untried measures there remain only: recognition of the insurgents as belligerents; recognition of the independence of Cuba; neutral intervention to end the war by imposing a rational compromise between the contestants, and intervention in favor of one or the other party. I speak not of forcible annexation, for that cannot be thought of. That by our code of morality would be criminal aggression.[1]

That statement was later lifted out of context and applied to the developing situation in the Philippines (as e.g., here), and pointing out its relevance in the context of the U.S. acquisition of the Philippines (annexation is too strong a word here, and cession, though technically accurate, is probably too soft) may have some merit, but the context needs to be preserved and the application of a statement from another context here explained—lifting the statement out of context and slapping it into the lead section of the article without explanation is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. The statement came to this article via a source which routinely disregards historical context and demonizes U.S. actions in the Philippine-American War (some of which actions, admittedly, richly deserve demonization).

This is an encyclopedia article, not a position paper on one point of view about who were the good guys and who were the bad guys regarding this bit of history. As William Tecumseh Sherman observed twenty years or so prior to the Philippine-American War, "War is Hell".

Apologies for the bluntness of the above, but I am pushed for time at the moment and did not want to rush off to other things and leave this unaddressed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wtmitchell

You are partly right in your observations. And I most apologize for having made just a single huge edit instead of several that are easier to revert on a single basis. I will now divide the edits into several entries, so they are easier to pinpoint.

OK, Let's talk.

First of all, the Philippines were unified for the first time ever under Spanish rule. Prior to that there was no Philippines as such. No one can argue that.

Second, to speak of smallpox, venereal disease, leprosy etc as one of the contributions made by the Spanish would be like crediting the malaria pandemic that killed over 200000 Filipinos during the American-Filipino War as an US contribution. Besides, neither smallpox, venereal disease or leprosy were that prominent in the Philippines as to make them worth of being slapped into the lead section of the article. Same goes for wars of aggression with firearms, deforestation, tribute, alienation of land, forced migration, heavy taxes. The Philippines were largely unprofitable for Spain. Spain actually put in more resources than it took away.

Third, to say "Universal education was never a Spanish objective in the Philippines." would be untrue. Universal education was made free for all Filipino subjects during the second part of the 19th century and remained so until the end of the Spanish colonial era.

Fourth, the American-Filipino war left a total number of casualties on the Filipino side of more than one million dead, many of them civilians. There's ample documentation on these numbers. Failing to mention this genocide that killed more than 10% of the population from the article would be irresponsible and totally unencyclopedic.

Fifth, Rizal was wrongly accused of implication in the outbreak of the revolution. No need to discuss that, it is a well known fact.

As for the McKinley statements, I believe they should be included, as they reflect the US position at the time. I will wait for your wise advice to point me in the right direction as to where to include them, as I'm sure you will agree, that being the official statements of the President of United States on the matter, they ought to be considered as 100% relevant to the topic.

Rafael Minuesa (talk) 13 April 2010

Thanks for your response. I'm not an academic, but I do have a strong interest in this topic with a focus on the 1898-1946 period. I'm currently in the middle of a house move and my books are packed. I see that you are relatively new to Wikipedia, at least as a logged-in editor. and I've left a comment on your talk page. Please take the time to read that before reading this further.

I agree with your first point above, noting that it says "under Spanish Rule". Whether that amounts to "Spanish rule achieved the political unification" your edited version or "Spanish rule unsuccessfully attempted to achieve the political unification" (the pre-edit version) depends on what "political unification" is taken to mean. If it is taken to mean colonial subjugation, you're right. I don't know what, if anything, the supporting source currently cited in that lede paragraph has to say about that, but I think that chapter one of Kalaw, Maximo Manguiat (1927), The Development of Philippine Politics, Oriental commercial, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer&cc=philamer&idno=afj2233.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=17  generally supports it.

Re your second point, I agree that the details you have removed did not belong in the lede. I would point out, though, that this snippet from the cited supporting source does seem to show that the removed material is supportable.

Re your third point, I can't take the time now to research the development of the educational system under Spanish rule and, as I daid, my books are packed. From what I recall, I think that it is reasonable to say that little or no formal educational system existed in pre-Spanish times, and that there was a formal system in place, probably largely Church-based, by Spanish-American War times. That war and the Philippine-American War which followed pretty well destroyed that system, and the Taft Commission built up a new educational system to replace it.

Re your fourth point, Content-wise I agree. I would point out that this is a summary style article, generally presenting an overview of topics covered in more detail in other articles. As such, it is important that the overview presented here generally agree with the details presented in the more topic-specific articles. You flatly state that civilian casualties numbered over a million, and cite sources which presumably support that. However sources disagree on that figure, and it is not appropriate for individual WP editors to cherrypick which POVs to present. Philippine–American War#Casualties gives, I think, a balanced presentation but too much detail for this article. Perhaps, in "... leaving a total number of casualties on the Filipino side of more than one million dead, many of them civilians.", the word "of" would be better replaced with something like "estimated by some as".

Re your fifth point, I think "implicated" here is the wrong word, and it should be "wrongly accused of involvement".

As to McKinley's statements, my understanding is that the statement, "by our code of morality, would be criminal aggression" specifically referred to Cuba, not to the Philippines. I tried to make that clear in my requote above, but I see that in my haste I botched the link to supporting material. The link should have pointed here. I've removed your reinsertion of that McKinley quote and inserted a {{cn}} tag following "... since the American government had reassured the Filipino rebels that the U.S. was interested only in defeating Spain and, in the process, helping the Filipinos gain their independence." Please take a look at History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#Did the U.S. promise independence? and the supporting sources cited there.

I've also reverted your change of "Filipinos initially saw their relationship ..." to "Filipinos initially were lead to believe that their relationship ..." back to the earlier wording. That wording was supported by a cited supporting source and, though I haven't seen the source I'm doubtful that it supports such a substantial change and the former wording fits better with the more detailed information in the more topic-specific articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell, I'm also a very busy man, but I'm also very interested in this topic. I partly agree with most of the edits in its current version. I will do some research as I see some points not clear enough.

Regarding the formal educational system that existed in Spanish times, I think you should be made aware of the fact that in 1863, Queen Isabel II of Spain decreed the establishment of a public school system. Ironically, it was during the initial years of American occupation in the early 20th century, that Spanish literature and press flourished.

You shouldn't trust that much American military propaganda sources when researching this topic, as their main objective was the denial of Spanish influence in the culture, traditions and language of the Philippines. There are many unbiased sources that can clarify many aspects of that era, some of them written in Spanish by Filipinos, who in many cases had fought against the colonial government, so their Spain's bias is out of question. I'd be delighted to translate them for you if you need any help. --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. You should be aware that sources which present information with which individual WP editors disagree should not be dismissed on the basis of such disagreement. Please read WP:NPOV.

Your recent unsupported content addition to the article is interesting, but I wish you had cited a supporting source. Please read WP:V. Googling around, I see that this source (which is mentioned in the Spanish language in the Philippines article) says that in 1898 (the beginning of the American era in the Philippines) , at most 15-20% of the population spoke Spanish. (that source is in Spanish, a language which I do not speak, but I managed to get that much out of it). One report at the time in 1916, however, said, "... Spanish is everywhere the language of business and social intercourse...In order for anyone to obtain prompt service from anyone, Spanish turns out to be more useful than English...And outside of Manila it is almost indispensable. The Americans who travel around all the islands customarily use it" (see [2]).

Though I'm personally not very knowledgeable on the history of Spanish language usage in the Philippines, I disagree with your assertion that the main objective of the Americans was the denial of Spanish influence in the culture, traditions and language of the Philippines. The main objective was to set up a viable system of gevernance in the country. In a statement published on September 1, 1900, the Taft Commission commissioners announced the holding of public meetings every Wednesday and Friday to give interested parties the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on proposed legislative matters. The open sessions were mainly conducted in English and Spanish. As the Americans became familiar with Spanish, the commissioners allowed their guests to use the language of their choice. (see Escalante, Rene R. (2007), The Bearer of Pax Americana: The Philippine Career of William H. Taft, 1900-1903, Quezon City, Philippines: New Day Publishers, p. 88, ISBN 9789711011666, http://books.google.com/books?id=obZwA ).Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

That source you cite that says that in 1898, at most 15-20% of the population spoke Spanish comes from a Spanish professor from Madrid who is giving his opinion, based on nothing else than his personal beliefs. In that very same document you'll read the opinion of another Filipino professor who puts that figure at 60-70%

Please re-read my statements again. I said that you shouldn't trust "American military propaganda sources", not Americans as a whole.

In my opinion, Mark Twain was a very respectable American. On the other hand, American General Jacob H. Smith, who ordered to "kill everyone over ten", obviously was not deserving of any respect at all.

This exchange appears to have wandered off topic. It either needs to come to a close or to refocus on improvements to this particular article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

United States territory: Removal of unnecessary tags and misplaced local links

I removed the tags and local links inserted in this edit. First because the whole paragraph (where the tags were placed) is supported by a credible and verifiable source, and second because the editor did not provide an equally credible authority to dispute the paragraph's assertions(one which would justify the insertion of the aforesaid tags). Having thus failed to provide an equally credible source that disputes the factual assertions made in the aforementioned paragraph, the tags are therefore unnecessary.

On the issue of a healthcare, It would be unnecessary to point to a particular event when the system was established because this took a series of steps such as the establishment of the Military Board of Health in 1898, the Civilian Board of Health in 1901, the Bureau of Governmental Laboratories also in 1901, and the establishment of a plethora of health centers all throughout the country (both by government and the private sector) such as the Philippine General Hospital (1907), St.Luke's Medical Center (1903), Iloilo Mission Hospital (1901), the Dumaguete Mission Hospital (1901) and many others.

On the issue of education, again no clarification is needed because that aspect of Philippine history is already well-established, particularly on the coming of the Thomasites, a group of teachers sent by the American Government which eventually resulted in the growth of the Philippine public school system. Prior to this period, education for the most part was limited to the moneyed elite. Thinkinggecko (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with six cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Wikipedia:FAR#History_of_the_Philippines (also at Wikipedia:FAR#History_of_the_Philippines/Archive1/) and did the following following on some (not all) of the bullet points there.

• Replaced the dead link with a WikiCite archive link
• The dablink is to Central Executive Committee. I think that is useful as a dablink and is preferable to a redlink to Central Executive Committee (Philippines).
• {{vc}} tagged refs 16, 22, 29, 51. I see that refs 17, 18, 19, 20, 33, 34, already have VC tags.
• Changed the single instance of "recognise" to "recognize".
• Added ref after last sentence of the Administration of Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) section.
• Tagged last sentence of the first paragraph of the Martial law section {{cn}}.
• Second para of Fourth Republic section only has two sentences; first one has a Ref. CN'd the second one.
• Regularized (Norling 2005:284) by moving full citation to References section. Tagged the page citation {{fv}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Section British occupation (1762-1764) far too long

I am removing most of the text in this section for several reasons:

1- It is exact copy of part of the article to be found at: British occupation of the Philippines.

2- It is extremely long, it takes even more space than other far more important events in Filipino History, such as the Philippine Revolution or the Philippine-American War.

3- Those two years of British occupation of Manila had little or no effect whatsoever in the History of the Philippines, and therefore it makes no sense dedicating so much space to it. It's more about

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Spanish rule during the 19th Century

I am reinstated a previous version perfectly referenced and that had been deleted without any valid justification

Here are the references, in case someone wants to check them out:

}}

}}

There is a section afterward that explains the reasons that led to the insurrection, none of them having anything to do with the treatment of most of the population, the economy or the education system.

It has also been stated that the Revolution would have not prospered if US military aid was not given to the rebels, as most of the population was on Spain's side. The Taft commission, for example, said that there were more people killed by Aguinaldo than in more than 3 centuries of Spanish rule.

If someone feels inclined to mass-delete a large part of a section due to a lack of understanding in their part of the issue at hand, please consult first and we'll take the time to point you out to the right sources that validate the content.

Thank you --RafaelMinuesa (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Updates and additional material

The Wikipedia entry on the history of the Philippines is begrudgingly short. I am not seeing the usual references and history textbooks that we used during high school and college here in the Philippines. The Philippine National Historical Society has been holding annual conferences and publishing journals that have recently uncovered details regarding local Philippine history, especially during Spanish colonial times. Perhaps we can use updated references vis-a-vis old historical sources (they seem to muddle history instead of shedding light). havagut 08:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havagut (talk • contribs)

Callao Man

When Callao Man discovered in 2007. It replace Tabon Man as oldest human remains in the Philippines, please note articles related to Callao Man to avoid confusions and spreading false informations...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The Callao Man's identity is still very much debatable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

local and foreign archaeologist already proved that Callao man is a human remain when they test it on different examinations, so why it is debatable?...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)