Jump to content

Talk:Philippine–American War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:4040:9e16:3200:44fb:538d:3f6d:2aa8 (talk) at 20:43, 15 August 2023 (→‎Moro Rebellion, Republic of Zamboanga not part of Philippine American War: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineePhilippine–American War was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 4, 2005, February 4, 2006, February 4, 2007, February 4, 2008, February 4, 2011, February 4, 2012, February 4, 2015, February 4, 2018, February 4, 2022, and February 4, 2023.

Irreconcilables

I think more information is needed about this group on the page. It is mentioned sparsely in the current version. GoutComplex (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. There's a WP article named Irreconcilables, but it is about a different bunch of people. The meaning of that term in this context ought to be explained at some wikilinkable point (perhaps in this article) and that ought to be offered as alternative there and wikilinked from other articles where it is relevant. The term in this context refers, I think, to revolutionary leaders who refused to accept government by the U.S. after July 4, 1902. Mabini was one of those, and a snippet of the article about him reads: " he was exiled to Guam, along with scores of revolutionists Americans referred to as insurrectos (rebels) and who refused to swear fealty to the United States." There's also some mention of this in the Artemio Ricarte article, and perhaps in other WP articles. I found some citeable info in The Outlook (New York City) in Taft, William H. (May 31, 1902). "Civil Government in the Philippines". The Outlook. Vol. 71, no. 5.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) on pages 313-314 of that online source (the term Irreconcilables is used abut halfway down the left-hand column of page 314). I don't have time right now to try to pull all of that together nicely for presentation in WP. If nobody else does that, I may get back to it later. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I do not know enough about this loaded topic to work on this page substantially anyway. GoutComplex (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note relevant sources I come across here:
Another note: I haven't found good citeable sources for all of this yet but, apparently. in early 1901 Arthur Macarthur was U.S. Military Government of the Philippines and, though W.H. Taft was in the country as head of the Taft Commission, he wass not empowered to establish a civil government until March 3 (see here) Also apparently, Taft and MacArthur disagreed in their view of the importance of the irreconcilables as a threat to the establishing of a lasting government in the Philippines (See the Taft 1902 cite above for some info on taft's views and this source for some inndication of MacArthur's views. Note tin that source that MacArthur deported Mabini, along with the other irreconcilables, to Guam on January 16 -- before Taft had authority to act as Civil Governor.
More sources:
  • "Filipinos to be exiled" (PDF). The New York Times. January 8, 1901.
  • MacArthur, A. "Exhibit A: Correspondence relative to the deportation of prisoners to the island o Guam". Annual Report of Major General Arthur MacArthur, U. S. Volunteers, Commanding, Division of the Philippines, Military Governor in the Philippine Islands. Annual Report of Major General Arthur MacArthur, U. S. Volunteers, Commanding, Division of the Philippines, Military Governor in the Philippine Islands.
  • "Mabini is Captured, 1899". criticsrant.com. Retrieved February 27, 2023.(interesting narrative, much of it relevant here. Contains a number of fair-good quality images relating to deportation of Irreconcilables to Guam -- particularly Mabini)
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article Irreconcilables (Philippines). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have never had anything happen this quick in my life. GoutComplex (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schurman vs. McKinley as U.S. commander

I have just reverted this edit. The edit flouts WP:BRD. Also, Schurman was not a military commander. He headed the Schurman Commission which, according to that article. was tasked by McKinley "to study the situation in the Philippines and make recommendations on how the U.S. should proceed after the sovereignty of the Philippines was ceded to the U.S. by Spain on December 10, 1898 following the Treaty of Paris of 1898.[1][2] " Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if McKinley should be counted here as a U.S. commander. Other pages of colonial wars from this period don't often list the heads of state at the time. Besides McKinley wasn't the only president during this war, in fact the war lasted four presidencies, so should we list all of those presidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9E16:3200:C0F1:70A0:FCF4:F79E (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties?

I think the Filipino casualties section of the infobox should be changed. The estimate of one million civilian casualties isn't supported by most sources and those high estimates are said to have resulted from misreading of sources. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:C0F1:70A0:FCF4:F79E (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McKinley vs. Taft as civilian commander

As of the time I have been writing this there have been multiple attempts to list William McKinley as a U.S. commander in this war. I feel that this is not the appropriate commander since the scale/stakes of this war are not high enough to have the president as top commander. The Philippines were an unrecognized state and seen as a rebellion by the U.S. at the time. The page for the Indian Mutiny, for example, does not list Queen Victoria as a top British commander. I feel as if Taft is the more appropriate civilian commander for this conflict as he was governor-general of the Philippines. Also as I have stated earlier, Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson were also presidents during this war, so if McKinley should be put in the commanders section then so should the other three. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:A90B:4B5:2B91:7008 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for discussing this here on the talk page instead of making unsupported changes to the article to that effect. I see several problems with the above:
  • First and foremost, there is "I think". I'm not the best person to explain this, but editorial opinion has little weight in WP -- see the WP:Neutral Point of View policy. Also see the WP:Verifiability policy. For more info, ask about those at the WP:Teahouse. Basic policy is that article assertions need to be supportable, and usually should be supported by citing one or more reliable sources. Generally, common knowledge assertions such as "the sky is blue" don't need a supporting cite; that might apply in this case, it being common knowledge that the US president is commander in chief of US armed forces. There might be exceptional cases counter to common knowledge (sometimes, the sky is red), and such exceptions generally do need a supporting cite. It often happens that sources differ -- see WP:DUE (part of the NPOV policy) about that.
  • The command structure on both sides of this war changed over its course. The infobox lists Otis as number two on the US side. It could name commanders not listed (e.g., Dewey and Merritt), but Otis is probably listed in the infobox because he was commander during most of the war's duration and/or because he was the hands-on commander during the most of the major fighting. The same arguments serve for listing McKinley instead of Roosevelt.
  • Neither Taft nor Wilson were US president during this war. The war ended in 1902, Taft became president in 1909 and Wilson in 1913
I'll note here that I sent you a link to this missive from McKlnley to Elihu Root. his Secretary of War, appointing Taft to head the Second Philippine Commission and instructing that the commission be empowered to devote their attention to the establishment of civil government and, initially subject to approval, to civil legislative matters. As an anonymous editor, you may not have seen this link. I suggest that you create a WP account. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that the president is always commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but if we look at the List of wars involving the United States, you will find that most of the wars that aren't A-list wars like the Civil War or WW2 do not list the president as top US commander. Similar US colonial wars such as the Sioux Wars, Apache Wars and Mexican Border War do not include the president in the commanders section even though he was commander-in-chief of the forces. Therefore, in a B-or-C-list war like this one, the stakes aren't high enough to list the president as commander.
Also, the infobox states that the war lasted until 1913 and the commanders section still lists commanders who were involved after 1902 (e.g. Sakay, Datu Ali, Wood, Bliss, Pershing). So this article is about the entire Philippine conflict and not just the war against the nationalists, as you have stated. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:1836:5D90:E52B:B4AE (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I see that I screwed up the indenting in my final paragraph above and that you based your indent on that. I've corrected that. I'm outdenting this in order to avoid cumulative indentng problems in back&forth discussion. This discussion ought to involve more participants than you and I; I hope that other editors will join in using similar indenting.
Where are your A-List, B-list categories for wars defined? Is that categorization recognized in WP? Is it otherwise supported by reliable sources?
I had not noticed that dating to 1913 in the infobox. I see that the mention of this latter period apparently stems from this addition on November 17, 2009 of mention of the Moro Rebellion. The editor who added that is currently blocked, but I have not looked into the reasons for that. Though the Moro Rebellion and the P-A War overlapped in time, there seems to be little connection between them. Mention of that in the infobox appears to have little direct relation to the subject of this article, the lead paragraph of which says that the war was fought between the First Philippine Republic (FPR) and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 2, 1902, and the leaders of the Moro Rebellion appear to have no connection with the FPR. From a quick look at mthat article, the rebellion apparently began with unprovoked ambushes of US troops which prompted Maj. Gen. Adna R. Chaffee, then the military governor of the Philippines, to issue a declaration on April 13, 1902, demanding that the killers of American troops be handed over. I won't get into more detail here but I will note that the office of Military Governor had been was terminated on July 2, 1902, with Taft and Chaffee apparently being both named as Governor-General of the Philippines on July 4. That sounds messy; I have not looked into the details, but my understanding is that the US considered the P-A war to be over at that point.

(added) I see that MOS:INFOBOXUSE

All of that probably needs a hard look, with revisions to this article and the other articles I've mentioned in mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary phase of the Philippine-American War lasted until 1902 but a number of historians, particularly Daniel Immerwahr in his book How to Hide an Empire: The History of the Greater United States define the war as including the Moro phase. This is also acknowledged by this article in the Post-1902 conflicts section.
Also I forgot to mention this earlier but Merritt's tenure as military commander in the Philippines ended before hostilities began, and Dewey had a very small and inconsequential role in the war to be a notable commander. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:A09B:F05:E1A0:2C89 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No argument re Dewey and Merritt; I should not have mentioned them. Re the rest. I think this is mainly involves two consideration, NPOV and article scoping.
The POV consideration is whether or not the conflict described in the Moro Rebellion article was a part of the war that is the subject of this article -- some sources say yes, some say no, some are unclear, some don't mention that. Per DUE, articles should air all significant viewpoints that have been published by cited reliable sources; per other parts of NPOV, POVs held by WP editors should not be allowed to impact articles.
Re article scoping, WP:LEAD says that the first sentence of an article should introduce the article topic by telling the nonspecialist reader what the subject is. The first sentence of this article currently reads: "The Philippine–American War,[3] known alternatively as the Philippine Insurrection, Filipino–American War,[4] or Tagalog Insurgency,[5][6][7] was fought between the First Philippine Republic and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 2, 1902." Taking that as written, the Moro Rebellion would be, at most, a sidelight mainly notable because of a conflict that occurred in the final months of the war period as defined in the article's lead sentence.
I propose (1) that the infobox be brought into conformance to the lead sentence definition of the article subject, (2) that the point that some sources disagree with the lead sentence's definition of the P-A war be mentioned in the article lead, exampling some cited significant RSs and (3) that the article be reviewed and edited to expand that point in summary style in the Post-1902 conflicts article section (note: that section currently cites a couple of examples of sources opining that the P-A war included some of these conflicts -- these cites would likely be relevant to the article scoping clarifications in the lead section). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from Immerwahr's consensus, Samuel Kong Tan, a Filipino historian, also seems to suggest that the war included the Moro phase.[1] This viewpoint is shared by historian Reynaldo Ileto as well, who appears to concur that the war went on past 1902. So I'm guessing that part in the introductory paragraph on the war ending in 1902 should be removed?
And back to the topic on who should be considered the "civilian" commander. I do not think that the president should be listed as a commander in the infobox because despite being commander-in-chief of the forces, the pages of most other colonial wars do not list the head of state as a commander. At this point I am still not certain if any civilian commander or administrator should be included. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:25AD:4F45:8152:BA65 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Moro Rebellion conflicts began after the dissolution of the First Philippine Republic and very shortly before the dates given in the Official end of the war article section. The basis of the two conflicts don't have much in common and both that other article and this one are pretty long. I can't see them being merged into a single article covering both conflicts as one. I see that as an article scoping issue requiring appropriate mentions OF RSs with viewpoints both ways. Re McKinley, I don't have a firm view, but I'm unclear on how one distinguishes a "A-List" article from a "B-List" one. I'm very unclear about who Otis reported to and took direction from. I'm not clear on the chain of command structure a century and a quarter ago, but he would probably report to either the Secretary of War (Elihu Root) or the President. What few mentions of him I've seen have given me the impression that Root wasn't very involved in nuts & bolts issues (see here). The McKinley was apparently concerned enough with the mechanics of getting the war out of the way and getting on with dealing with the fact of the cession to limit Otis to military issue and Taft to administrative and legislative issues in preparation for moving on from military concerns (or that's how I read things). I can't see listing Otis as military commander and leaving it at that; who do you see as his commander? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Otis, along with MacArthur, were pretty much in charge of the Philippines prior to the instatement of Taft. The war was not McKinley's primary focus during his presidency (unlike Lincoln or FDR) and he largely left it up to the military commanders. In fact Otis and MacArthur refused to compromise with the Philippine nationalists and were bent on completely extinguishing the insurrection, early in the war the Filipinos tried to surrender but Otis refused. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:7102:BF91:D29B:6377 (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the question of who was inn charge of conforming actions of the military mission to national policy, I've pretty much gotten that impression as well, but I've seen nothing to support or refute it. Also, "tried to surrender" is a major overstatment there -- see here (that source is cited in the p-a war article. Other sources supporting this are cited elsewhere). Later but still early in the fighting, Jacob Schurman (directly representing McKinley) thought that he had reached a deal with Aguinaldo (through a representative) to end the fighting and work out governmental details later along agreed guidelines, but Antonio Luna (and Mabini, I think) pressured/forced (my characterization) Aguinaldo to renege on that (see the Schurman Commission article and pp. 8-9 here). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have mentioned Jacob Schurman engaging in diplomacy with the Philippine Republic, this has been argued before but should Schurman actually be listed as top U.S. civilian commander? Like you said Schurman was a direct representative of McKinley but it seems he was more involved in the nuts and bolts of the war than McKinley was, don't know if there's any evidence of direct negotiations between McKinley and the Philippine government. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:D410:E107:94DC:DFF5 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't dug around in this area for some time. Following on your question about whether Schurman ought perhaps be listed as civilian commander, I looked around a bit in my spare time and turned up this, which says that McKinley issued instructions on June 18, 1899 to the commission partially paraphrased there as, "Without interfering in any way with the existing military government of General Otis, the civilian members of the commission were to [...]". Later on, it says, "Toward the end of the month Manuel Arguelles, a Filipino colonel, came to Manila as an emissary from Aguinaldo. He asked the commission for a truce so that his superiors might consider the proclamation [(a proclamation written in the name of the commission by Schurman, cited there but not quoted)]; but only General Otis could grant an armistice and the civilian members refused to urge this move upon him since that might have been interpreted as interference." So, I would say no to that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(added) {1) I see that {{infobox military conflict}}the docs for {{infobox military conflict}} say that the commander paramatrers are optional and, , "For battles, this should include military commanders (and other officers as necessary). For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." I haven't looked at many articles re conflicts in the Philippines in this era with this in mind, but I have the impression that, in general, they don't follow this. That may be something which should be brought up at WT:Tambayan Philippines, but that guidance does seem at odds with the idea of A/B/C-List wars described above. (2) I've added a {{discuss}} template to the article re this. In doing that, I see that the list of military commanders has been expanded to include all top-level commanders in the timeline of this war. I happen to have looked at the OEF-P article recently and I see that, though I would categorize that as a battle article rather than war, I see that iot includes a dated entries for national commanders; I think that the entries ought to be timeline-dated if multiple commanders over a timeline are listed. (3) I've had some more thoughts re McKinley in particular and re national leaders as top military commander in general, but (a) I'm not quite ready to air them and (b) this discussion is already too long. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still of the opinion that McKinley should not be included since despite being commander in chief this wasn't seen as a major war by the US at the time and more like a local insurrection and was not between two sovereign nations as the Philippine Republic was an unrecognized state. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:E5DF:2B72:F9FD:DBDD (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that's your opinion, based on your A-List/B-List categorization of U.S. wars. I haven't seen that in WP policies or guidelines or in the usage instructions for {{infobox military conflict}}. Re War vs. Insurrection in descriptive terminology, the RP government and the US government differed on that until, a few decades ago, the US State Department started calling the portion before July 4, 1902 a War. I saw plenty of support for the fact of that change being made at the time, but I haven't quickly been able to locate a citeable supporting source; I'm sure that there must be something out there. Regardless, I agree with you that after July 4, 1902 such incidents should properly be called insurrections. As such, they would be off-topic for this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(added) The WP guideline section WP:INFOBOXUSE says, "Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used." {{infobox military conflict}} does have such documentation. That same MOS section says, "Like navigation templates, infoboxes should avoid flag icons. For more information about flag icons, see MOS:FLAG." Clearly, this article flouts that. Despite having proposed action above, I don't currently plan on any action regarding this myself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  1. ^ E. Marquez. My Country and My People 6. Rex Bookstore, Inc. p. 218. ISBN 978-971-23-2255-6.
  2. ^ Ronald E. Dolan, ed. (1991). "United States Rule". Philippines: A Country Study. Washington, D.C.: GPO for the Library of Congress. Retrieved January 5, 2008.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference StateDept was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ (Spanish: Guerra filipina-estadounidense, Tagalog: Digmaang Pilipino–Amerikano)
  5. ^ Multiple sources:
  6. ^ Battjes 2011, p. 74.
  7. ^ Silbey 2008, p. xv.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippine–American_War&oldid=1170566341"