Talk:Philippine Revolution

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Spanish military history task force

References

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how referencing sources usually works, but I think it would be clearer if the external links were called references if they were used while writing the article. If the Library of Congress Country Studies/Area Handbook was used as a reference, maybe we should list this too even if it is public domain.Onionhound 06:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Also see WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, and WP:V. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this article not seem to provide any segue (or even a link) to the subsequent Philippine-U.S. War (characterized as the Philippine Insurrection in the U.S.)? Jkp1187 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I provided a wikilink to Philippine-American war in the Aftermath section. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also new to Wikipedia. I just want to ask for the reference for Russian Empire's support for the Katipunan and for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland's alledged support Siklab Agimat 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siklab Agimat (talk • contribs)

The reference of the atrocities under the Americans were mostly take from Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.204.46 (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Php bill 5 back.jpg

The image Image:Php bill 5 back.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Ph pres aguinaldo.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Pagidlawin" vs. "Pagid Lawin"

I note some recent changes in this article "Pagidlawin" to "Pagid Lawin". My wife tells me that the two-word version of this means "Eagle's Nest". I can't find any references to the two-word version of this in the books I have on Philippine history. Does this usage have any historical validity, or is it a vanity-driven stylistic revision c. 2008? If the latter, it should be changed back.

Also—another topic, but related—it seems to me from what I've read that Wikipedia should have an article named Cry of Pagdilawin, and that Cry of Balintawak should redirect to that article. It surprises me that neither article exists, as both phrases are often seen in browsing material about the Philippine revolution. I could create such an article as a bare-bones stub containing the material I've recently added to the Cry of Pagdilawin section of this article, but others more knowledgeable than myself could probably make a better job of it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Result info in the infobox, etc.

The infobox says

Result	Philippines Victory
	Expulsion of the Spanish colonial government. Establishment of the First Philippine Republic and Beginning of the Philippine-American War.

This distorts history, at least as I understand the relevant history. The expulsion of the Spanish government came about because of the Treaty of Paris (1898) which ended the Spanish-American War. The First Philippine Republic was an insurgent government which did not mature into an independent national government.

Thinking about Philippines Victory, also listed as a result, I realized that I don't know much at all about military engagements between Spanish forces and Philippines revolutionaries subsequent to Aguinaldo returning from exile in Hong Kong to resume the revolution. A quick look in some books I have handy didn't enlighten me, and this article doesn't appear to contain any info about that (and it probably should). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If I remember my Filipino history class. The Spanish were already verge of defeat. They Only held Intramuros until the Treaty of Paris was signed. The treaty transferred control of Intramuros to the American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.39.198 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an addition to my previous post. No the First Philippine Republic was already an establish government unfortunately it wasn't recognized by foreign powers for obvious reason. It had its own constitution and flag Malolos Constitution. Hpilippine history is full of problems.. In the America it is know Philippine Insurgency, but to Filipinos it was a war. I read somewhere the U.S. Library of Congress already reclassified the insurrection as a war. unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.39.19:8 (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're right about the reclassification as a war. Here's the scoop from the Filipino side:

- Filipinos want independence from Spain. U.S. say's they'll back insurgence. Spanish are defeated in Philippines. U.S. double crosses the Filipinos and instead of recognizing them as an independent nation, takes them over as a territory, leaving them in no better position than they were with the spanish. Fifty years later, Philippines is granted independence. U.S. was an imperialist nation at that time. (1900.) --71.214.221.164 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding nomenclature, although Americans have historically used the term "the Philippine Insurrection," Filipinos and an increasing number of American historians refer to these hostilities as the Philippine-American War (1899-1902), and in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term. See http://web.archive.org/web/20080330004538/http://manila.usembassy.gov/wwwhjusm.html.

Regarding the assertion, "U.S. say's they'll back insurgence", see History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#Did the U.S. promise independence? and supporting sources cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Criollo insurgencies section

I've reverted part of this edit, changing "mis-understood the conflict in Quiapo" back to "mistook the fireworks of Auiapo". Both versions lack cited supporting sources, but I don't understand the change. What conflict in Quiapo? I had taken the previously mentioned fireworks to be in celebration of (as the section says, "Novales declared the independence of the Philippines from Spain and crowned himself Emperor of the Philippines."

Who the heck is Novales, anyhow? This article makes no other mention of him. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(added) Oh. Googling around, I see some info on this here. I don't have time to fiddle with this right now. If nobody else improves this, perhaps I'll come back and do it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Boracay Bill,

I am not familiar with Wikipedia interface and have no time to learn them but I believe I was involved in most of the contents of this article including the Criollo Insurgencies, which I initially wrote as Creole Insurgencies as termed by the original source. My source for these informations is the book "A Question of Heroes" written by the late Nick Joaquin. Nick Joaquin based this book on first hand accounts of such persons as Sinibaldo de Mas, Manuel Artigas, Apolinario Mabini, Jose Rizal - personalities who lived through the 1800s.

Ventada de Manila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventada de Manila (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cry of Pugadlawin

A very notable event, but I can't find it here. Any reaction?--JL 09^{Talk to me!} 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Eight provinces

The list currently reads Manila, Bulacan, Cavite, Pampanga, Tarlac, Laguna, Batangas, and Nueva Ecija, after this edit replaced Bataan with Tarlac. I'm not really clear on the geography, either now or in 1896 or on the details of the development of the revolution, but I see that, in a section headed "The Revolution Spreads", the cited supporting source cited mentions

• Pasig, Pandakan, Pateros, Tagig, Kalookan, San Pedro Makati, Mariquina in Manila
• Kawit, General Trias, Noveleta in Cavite
• San Mateo, Montalban (now Rodriguez) in Rizal

I've tagged this {{failed verification}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed section: Rise of Filipino nationalism

I've placed a {{disputed}} tag in this section, which is also tagged as {{unreferenced}}. This section is vague on the timeline of the rise of nationalism, but gives the impression that it is rooted in relatively recent times. The Philippine revolts against Spain article paints a contrary picture. Teodoro Agoncillo, in History of the Filipino People, says, " Lapulapu of Mactan (1521) and Dagami of Cebu (1567) were among the first Filipinos to refuse to bow under Spanish yoke." It looks to me as if this section needs to be rewritten (citing some supporting sources) or expunged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Revolts against Spain does not necessarily mean it is nationalistic or national in scope. The earlier revolts that you refer to did not result to Filipino nationalism. Lapu-Lapu's battle against Magellan was an effort to protect the kingdom of Mactan and did not result to Filipino nationalism. Same Dagohoy (longest revolt against Spain) who was protecting his noble rights and did not result to Filipino nationalism. The end result of Filipino nationalism is the birth of a nation, that is on June 12, 1898 when Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed independence. Given the effect (that is the First Phiippine Republic), historians can trace the events how everything began. Majority of historians trace the rise of Filipino nationalism to the execution of GomBurZa (Mariano Gomez-Jose Burgos-Jacinto Zamora). Padre Jose Burgos is officially recognized by the Philippine government as the "father of Filipino nationalism". The government did not give this title to Lapu-Lapu or Sulayman who were among the first to resist Spanish rule. Before GomBurZa, the population of the Philippines were referred to as Indio, Mestizo, Criollo, Peninsulares, Sangley. Filipino Nationalism is thus a recent event. Nick Joaquin goes even further and trace Filipino Nationalism to Luis Rodriguez Varela. But no historian has ever traced Filipino Nationalism beyond that. In Agoncillo's book (History of the Filipino People), his chapter on "revolts against Spain" does not claim Filipino nationalism was already there way before the Spaniards came. It simply states and he said so himself that revolts began at the very onslaught of Spanish rule but were not national in scope. No other province participated and no Filipino nation was was ever conceived in this early revolts.

Teodoro Agoncillo's book does not mention the story of the rise of Filipino nationalism as most other history books does. Among the circle of Filipino historians, Agoncillo is a well respected person but considered radical and sometimes even communist. Agoncillo's idea of nationhood is that of the Indios robbed of their nation by recent settlers. For Agoncillo (it seems), the Philippines is still not free as the nation is dominated by SPanish mestizos, whom he doesnt seem to consider Filipino. In his book, he wrote passages that said no Filipino benefited from education, the Galleon trade and government. It bedazzles the reader who grew up in the Philippines for we know that Jose Rizal and Manuel Quezon were definitely not Spaniards but were educated in institutions (ATeneo, Letran, etc.) that AGoncillo says were reserved only for Spaniards. We know that Pedro Pelaez was definitely not a Spaniard but he was ARchbishop of Manila, a high position that Agoncillo said were reserved only for Spaniards. So if we are to follow Agoncillo's school of thought, it seems that the Spaniards revolted against themselves and that the revolution was nothing more than a civil war between two kinds of Spaniards, which we know is not true since the government recognizes a Criollo (Padre Jose Burgos) as the "Father of Filipino Nationalism".

Agoncillo's books are fresh looks into Philippine history. It is radically pro-Indio and staunchly anti elite. More traditional writings of Nick Joaquin, CArlos, Zaide and Ambeth Ocampo all wrote that Filipino Nationalism was a recent event and that the revolution was a revolt of the ilustrados. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.92.42 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC) N TO HAVE

I wasn't able to follow that in detail, but I think I get the idea. I tried to verify a few specifics, though, and found the following:

• I happen to have Zaide, Sonia M. (1994). The Philippines: A Unique Nation. All-Nations Publishing Co.. ISBN 971-642-071-4.  on my bookshelf, so I looked up "Nationalism" in the index. On pages 138-139 she has a brief section titled Spain's Contribution to Filipino Nationalism, where she writes, "To Spain, Filipinos are eternally indebted for having given them their identity as a nation. [...] Throughout the 300-year colonial period, Spain unwittingly caused the diverse native tribes ([list]) to unite into one people - the Filipino nation." On pages 284-285, though, she writes of Suppressed Nationalism and Emergence of Nationalist Parties in the early 20th century, and on page 311 she writes of America's Contribution to Filipino Nationalism. It's not indexed under "Nationalism", but she writes in considerable detail about the Katipunan on pages 227-233, and clearly presents that as a nationalistic movement. It seems to me that she is saying that the seeds of Filipino nationalism were planted and took root during the Spanish colonial period, and bloomed in the Katipunan period and post-1900. I think that supportable by citing Zaide 1994, p. 138-139, 227-233, 284-285.
• Searching in Google Books for "father of Filipino nationalism" turns up a large number of mentions of Jose Rizal in that role. Adding "Zamora" to that search filtered it down to a few books which mention Gomez/Burgos/Zamora.
• A paper, Mona Lisa H. Quizon, The Seed of Nationalism, National Historical Institute, speaks of the year 1872 and the event of the conviction and execution of Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora as a turning point in Filipino history - calling it "a year when Filipino nationalism took its full circle." That paper says, "Without 1872, Rizal would now have been a Jesuit and instead of writing Noli Me Tangere would have written the opposite."
• Kalaw, Maximo M. (1927). The development of Philippine politics. Oriental commercial. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=philamer;idno=AFJ2233.0001.001.  speaks to this. Page 32 calls the death of Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora "the starting point of active Filipino nationalism". Page 63-64 speaks of Rizal returning to Manila in 1892, saying that he "wanted to direct the work of nationalism in person.", and traveling to the provinces to preach on the themes of unity, organization, and nationalism. Page 67 calls Rizal "the real founder of Philippine nationalism", saying that while the seed of an awakening political consciousness may have been planted by others, Rizal's writings "... cleared the ground of its iniquitous weeds."

The subject section badly needs a rewrite using material which cites supporting sources. I would suggest using some of the foregoing points and the supporting sources mentioned as a starting point for such a rewrite. If nobody else gets to it first, and unless there is opposition, I'll probably get into that in the next few days. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to get a hold of Guerrero's book "The First Filipino", which is an award winning biography of Jose Rizal. THe first few pages writes about the execution of Gomez, Burgos and Zamora. I myself haven't read the entire book and have no access to it for the moment. But I did browse on the first few pages. If you wish to know what transpired before GomBurZa, you may want to get a hold of Nick Joaquin's book "A Question of Heroes". Most history books begin with GomBurZa but readers (like myself) did not know it's significance as it was vague. It was Nick Joaquin's book that enlightened me.

I don't have time to conduct research but this is the missing chapter in Filipino history. Most books I've read begin with Lapu-Lapu, Sulayman and jumps into Burgos briefly then jumps into the Propaganda movement. It mentions nothing of what happened from 1565 to 1872, that's almost three centuries. Nick Joaquin's book (A Question of Heroes) is the only one I've encountered so far mentioning events that transpired before 1872 and names like Luis Rodriguez Varela, Andres Novales, Simon de Anda, Pedro Pelaez, Antonio Regidor, Los Hijos del Pais, etc. Also, we must remember that some 70 percent of historical documents on Philippine history remain untranslated from Spanish up to now. That means only 30 percent of what really happened are written in history books we grew up with.

You know, Ambeth Ocampo has a facebook where he encourage comments on his newspaper articles on history. He is a regular writer on history with the Inquirer. It is from him I learned that Sulayman is the "Hero of Manila" and not Andres Bonifacio. Maybe we can clarify from him and ask sources who the Father of Filipino Nationalism is. I did try to google and Jose Rizal came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.92.42 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I live on Boracay, and my sources are limited to what books I happen to have on my bookshelf (augmented during occasional trips to Manila) and what I can find online. Also, if you haven't done so already, please read WP:V. "Ambeth Ocampo told me privately" does not a good supporting source make, and material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed (as I'm probably going to be removing the unsupported content of this section and replacing it with content supported by cited sources). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

English

I've noticed as changes pop this article up on my watchlist that English usage in this article is deteriorating. I would reword, but sometimes I'm not sufficiently familiar with the material to do that. One illustrative paragraph where a change popped up today:

Rizal did many anti-Spanish writings. His two novels, Noli Me Tangere (Touch Me Not, 1887) and El Filibusterismo (The Filibuster, 1891), exposed Spanish abuses in socio-political and religious aspects. The publication of his first novel brought the infamous agrarian conflict in his hometown Calamba, Laguna in 1888 when Dominican haciendas fell into trouble of submitting government taxes. In 1892, Rizal, after his return from the Americas, established the La Liga Filipina (The Filipino League), a Filipino association organized to seek reforms from the colonial government. When the Spaniards learned that their haunted writer was in the Philippines, they arrested and deported Rizal a few days after the Liga was established.

• "Rizal did many anti-Spanish writings."?? "Many of Rizal's writings were anti-Spanish" would be better, if that's what is intended to be said.
• I'm guessing that "brought" should be "brought to light".
• "... fell into trouble of submitting government taxes." ???
• "... their haunted writer ..."??? I'm guessing that this might have been intended to be something like "the writer they had been hunting", except that I don't see anything establishing that the Spanish were hunting him.

Also, not having read Rizal, I have trouble following the connection between Noli Me Tangere and "brought the infamous agrarian conflict in his hometown ...". The wikilinked article about the novel doesn't help. A page-numbered cite to something like this showing where that novel "brought the infamous agrarian conflict" would help.

This article needs to be looked at by someone who can write English and who knows the material better than I.

Also, supporting sources should be cited. Donald H. Dyal; Brian B. Carpenter; Mark A. Thomas (1996), Historical dictionary of the Spanish American War, Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 281-282, ISBN 9780313288524, http://books.google.com/books?id=PvxFKPI6q_oC  looks like it contains some useful and relevant material. Perhaps other supporting cites can be found in something like Lineage Life and Labors of Jos Rizal Philippine Patriot (Illustrated Edition), Echo Library, 2008, ISBN 9781406827385, http://books.google.com/books?id=7Tf87mwBbjkC&printsec=frontcover . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

German Empire's involvement in the Revolution

Hello, i was wondering of German Empire's involvement of the Philippine Revolution. The Background is like this:

After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 to 1871, Germany's (or should i called it) diplomatic relations of France was still not yet what you called "Peaceful". The Second French Repubic's relations to Spain after the French involvement in the civil war (that is even before the Franco-Prussian war) is like Friendly what i called due to France's support to the Royalist against the Liberals. Germany's tensions to France's allies (like Britain and Spain) is growing weary and could start a world war. So Germany planed to supply weapons to rebel factions from France and its Allies' colonies like the Philippine that is under Spain. One German-made weapon that is used by the Katipunan is the bolt action Dreyse needle gun. Although it is not written in the article that it is used by the Katipunan, Few of these guns were delivered secretly and used by the Katipunan. When the Katipunan's numbers grow larger, supplies of this gun were needed and when the Philippines is now independent, it became the First Philippine Republic and PRA's main weapon of choice. Before the Philippine-American war, the Republic needed a new rifle to replace the existing Needle gun. They choose the Mauser rifle (M1889-91) so that is why we have in our local history books that Emilio Aguinaldo ordered i think 100'000 rifles. And also there have been reports that the early Armed Forces (1899-1900) have a Cannon (no specific classification) that is being made by Krupp.

Whether it is true or not, there are still questions that cannot be answered until today. This is only one of the backgrounds of Germany's involvement in World's revolutions of the late 19th century. If you have any quesions in this discussion, please write it down. By the way, there are many photos of this kind of rifles that are being used by the early Philippine Army. Thank you and MABUHAY!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikido Philippines (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)