Talk:Philippine–American War

Cartoon as supporting source

In this edit, I've brought the caption of the cartoon back into agreement with what the cited supporting source supports. The text I replaced was added in this edit, apparently with the presumption that the cartoon supports an assertion that the specific incident depicted in the cartoon actually did occur. The WP article section Jacob H. Smith#Smith' court-martial says that Smith was court-martialed for "conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Images of Philippine-American War[dead link] This is not a Dead Link. I have got onto this page two times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.29.190 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the definition of atrocity?

Given that the Americans where unambiguously an invading force, it seems to strain credulity to label the actions of the Filipino insurgents as an atrocity out of context. Does this square with an internationally recognized definition? Does it make sense to identify individual acts as atrocities if the effort as a whole is an attempt at self preservation? This seems to me to have a tinge of 19th century American imperialism apologetic bias about it. Harburg (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of it do sound suspiciously similar to anti-Native American propaganda, especially the description of the torture methods. Transmitting leprosy (how? It wasn't even yet widely viewed as an infectious disease in the late 19th century) and killing natives who refused to support Aguinaldo 'by the thousands' sound extremely dubious as well. In stark contrast are the well-documented orders of several American officers to kill civilians including children in retaliation for guerrilla warfare.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Harburg, The point which you take as given and unambiguous is neither. Also, I don't think that identity of the perpetrator bears on whether or not an act is an atrocity (see e.g., [1]). Re leprosy, the article cites (Miller 1982:92-93) as a supporting source. I don't have access to that book just now, but a little googling turned up a hit on Journal of Asian American studies: Volume 4, which apparently contains "... article report on the unfortunate narrative of an American soldier injected with leprosy by a group of Filipino insurgents (see figure 1 ). ..." (I haven't seen the quoted journal article and don't have access to a library where I might look at it). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... that journal cites David Brody's book, and David Brody's book is happily accessible in Google Books with the picture (which is actually a drawing purportedly from a picture). See page 69 of Visualizing American Empire: Orientalism and Imperialism in the Philippines. Brody actually unequivocally considers it apocryphal and even discusses extensively why that particular imagery was used.

I have to chuckle though. How much more obvious can you get than naming a leper-to-be 'Lapeer'? Brody aside, beyond that 1899 article that captured the American public, we know nothing more about the guy. If this was published today, it would have instantly been classified tabloid fare. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting.

WRT Wikipedia editorial policies, what the article presently says is "It was also stated that some prisoners were deliberately infected with leprosy ..." (emphasis mine), seeming to cite (Miller 1982, pp. 92–93) in support of the assertion that such a statement was made. I have a copy of the Miller book at home, and I'll look at it when I get back there in a few days. The journal I googled up and which you've apparently looked at says, "... article report on the unfortunate narrative of an American soldier injected with leprosy ...". You mention that the article cites the Brody book, and that book further confirms that the claims were stated (in, the book says, an article called "The Revenge of the Filipino" published in an 1899 edition of The World -- apparently in the January 22, 1899 edition -- see [2]). WRT Wikipedia, specifically WRT WP:V, it appears to be verifiable that such a claim re leprosy was stated -- as the article asserts.

WRT the degree of validity of such a claim (something not presently touched upon in the article), my understanding is that you read the Brody book as suggesting that the story is published by The World is apocryphal. It might be worthwhile to mention that, citing that book. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I separated the mention of the leprosy infection from the rest of the paragraph, pending confirmation from Miller (might help if you can determine if it's based on that single newspaper article as well). Please check if the wording is alright. I wonder if we should link the paragraph on media reports to Yellow journalism. The newspaper that reported Lapeer is Pulitzer's New York World. And that, along with several others, were rather infamous for sensationalist headlines that had no basis in fact whatsoever.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I should be back home, with access to my bookshelf, in a couple of days. I further edited the page to more clearly attribute the assertion that the name Lapeer is probably a pun to the Brody book, rather than stating it as (arguably) a Wikipedia editorial opinion. Also, a bit of further googling turned up this book page and this requoted 17 March 1899 news article, this 10 February 1899 newspaper page (see article headed "Made Leper for Revenge"), this 15 February 1899 newspaper (see the story headed "Fiendish revenge" near the top of column 6 on page 1). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my point - I would think that pouring boiling water on people could easily classify as an atrocity in the Iraq conflict, but crying that the pouring of boiling water on viking marauders as they try to bust down the castle gate is an atrocity is conspicuously silly. It's not for me to judge the merits of the McKinley administration's decision to invade the Philippines. But the undisputed facts are that they were grown adult soldiers who were invading another country that, by all accounts, posed no immediate danger to the US or their vital interests. There are arguments that can be made to justify the decision to invade in light of the 19th century world. The classic argument was that if the US didn't invade, some other country would have, and they might not have our sweet disposition. But to cry and moan about insurgent atrocities against invading soldiers in the 19th century? Really? It's embarrassing.Harburg (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I said that when I got back home I would check the Miller book cited in the article re the leprosy portion of the discussion above. I've looked at the book. Page 93 contains the following: "... It was even charged that some prisoners were deliberately infected with leprosy before being released in order to spread the disease among their comrades. ..."

Invasion mischaracterizes the initial U.S. involvement the Philippine-American war. According to (Linn 2000:42) (see cite in the article), U.S. Army forces in the Philippines at the beginning of February 1898, prior to the eruption of hostilities between U.S. and Filipino forces, amounted to about 800 officers and 20,000 enlisted men. Also, in December of 1898 the U.S. and Spain had concluded the Treaty of Paris (1898), in which Spain ceded the Philippines to the U.S. as a part of arrangements ending the Spanish-American War.

Re the Atrocities section, please read WP:DUE. If the section requires adjustment, that WP policy should be looked to for guidance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Explaining removal of article content re "undoubtedly" carried out atrocities

The word "undoubtedly" in quotes caught my eye. I checked the cited supporting source and found no support on the cited page, which doesn't seem very focused on the ground covered by the paragraph to which it is attached. I've removed the sentence with "undoubtedly" from the paragraph and changed the page number in the cite to one where the remaining info is supported. I'll notify the editor who added this back in 2007 of this change so the removed content can be re-added if I've made a mistake here or if some other reliable source supports the content I've removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Explaining removal of article content re "undoubtedly" carried out atrocities

Re this edit, the word "undoubtedly" in quotes caught my eye. I checked the cited supporting source and found no support on the cited page, which doesn't seem very focused on the ground covered by the rest of the text preceding the cite. I've removed the sentence with "undoubtedly" from the paragraph and changed the page number in the cite to one where the remaining info is supported. I'll notify the editor who added this back in 2007 of this change so the removed content can be re-added if I've made a mistake here or if some other reliable source supports the content I've removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)