Talk:Philippine–American War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Points of contention in revision 1231329917

A sequence of edits were made at 1231303283, 1231304008 and 1231304161. @user:141.155.35.58, with regards to your edit 1231303283, none of the changes you made reverted instances of vandalism. We can discuss each point of contention here. Chino-Catane (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your edits constituted a major change to this article that was not initially discussed beforehand. Please get editor consensus before making such drastic changes to the article. For example, omitting the post-1902 campaigns from the infobox is a major change to the article that is undoing a long-held consensus that definitely needs to be discussed before removing. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your revision 1231329917 asserts in the info box that this war ended April 16, 1902. Why is it appropriate to label campaigns as part of the "Philippine-American War" if they extend beyond the war's end date of April 16, 1902? Shouldn't such campaigns be labeled as being parts of different 'wars', and instead appear in the info boxes of different articles? Chino-Catane (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The post-1902 campaigns, such as the Moro Rebellion, Sakay's rebellion, the various Pulahan skirmishes, etc. are usually considered by historians to be part of the Philippine-American War and not their own separate wars, thus it is recommended to follow the academic consensus. Furthermore the campaign box of the Philippine-American war lists battles that took place after 1902, so it is clear that the consensus as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that the war in the Philippines did not completely end until 1913, despite the Philippine Republic ending in 1902. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"...recommended to follow the academic consensus..." When I scholar.google the string "Philippine American War" my search returns:

• [BOOK] Response to Imperialism: The United States and the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902; RE Welch Jr - 2016
• Why the United States Won the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902; GA May - Pacific Historical Review, 1983 - JSTOR
• [BOOK] A war of frontier and empire: The Philippine-American war, 1899-1902; D Silbey - 2008
• [BOOK] The Philippine War, 1899-1902; BMA Linn - 2000
• The Philippine-American War (1899-1902): Compassion or Conquest?; E Holm - 2014
• Perspectives on peace during the Philippine—American war of 1899–1902; MSI Diokno - South East Asia Research, 1997
• “I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE PEOPLE”: AFRICAN AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN THE PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN WAR, 1899–1902; TD Russell - The Journal of African American History, 2014
• The role of geography in counterinsurgency warfare: The Philippine American War, 1899–1902; WN Holden - GeoJournal, 2020 - Springer
• The Philippine War, 1899–1902; RD Cunningham - 2002 - JSTOR
• The Spanish-American and Philippine wars, 1898-1902; GA Cosmas - A companion to American Military History, 2010
• A War of Frontier and Empire: The Philippine-American War, 1899-1902; M Polner - Fellowship, 2007

What "academic consensus" regarding "post-1902" campaigns are you referring to? Chino-Catane (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources on the contrary arguing that the war lasted until 1913

• The Filipino-American War, 1899-1913; Samuel K. Tan, 2003
• Forgotten Under a Tropical Sun: War stories by American Veterans in the Philippines, 1899-1913; Joseph P. McCallus, 2017
• The Philippine Insurrection (1899-1913) and the word "Boondocks" | War and Etymology; Joseph Hall-Patton, 2016
• How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States (2019) by Daniel Immerwahr and The United States of War: A Global History of America's Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State (2020) by David Vine both state the Philippine-American War as lasting from 1899 to 1913.

Furthermore, the article itself states that writers who have studied the post-1902 conflicts consider them to be a part of the war. There have also been no significant scholarly arguments made that said conflicts are distinctly not part of the Philippine-American War. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States" and "The United States of War: A Global History of America's Endless Conflicts" : The titles of these publications alone betray editorial bias. Every sentence in a Wikipedia article should be a hard fact, devoid of passion and prejudice, supported by reliable sources. How many pages do either of these two sources dedicate to rigorous analysis of the "Philippine-American War"? Divide that number by the total number of pages. If the resulting ratio is small, why should views promoted by these sources be afforded undue weight relative to sources that treat the "Philippine-American War" as their primary topics of investigation? If "both state the Philippine-American War as lasting from 1899 to 1913", please provide block quotes with page numbers. Chino-Catane (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@141.155.35.58 "article itself states that writers who have studied the post-1902 conflicts consider them to be a part of the war" The article states nothing of the sort. Please point me to that statement.

"no significant scholarly arguments made that said conflicts are distinctly not part of the Philippine-American War" The majority of WP:RS that treat the "Philippine-American War" as their primary subject of investigation adhere to the view that "post-1902 campaigns" are distinctly not part of the "Philippine-American War". They do not investigate "post-1902 campaigns" in any meaningful way. It is the responsibility of the minority view to justify its existence.

Your revision 1231329917 asserts that "...was fought between the First Philippine Republic and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 1, 1902." July 1, 1902 extends beyond the end date of the war asserted in the info box of April 16, 1902. How do you reconcile this? Chino-Catane (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The section "Post-1902 conflicts" states: 141.155.35.58 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The section "Post-1902 conflicts" states of said conflicts:

"Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." Citing The Philippines: A Past Revisited (1975) by Renato Constantino

The change of the end date to July 1 was also not mine and was done by another editor.

@Chino-Catane "The majority of WP:RS that treat the "Philippine-American War" as their primary subject of investigation adhere to the view that "post-1902 campaigns" are distinctly not part of the "Philippine-American War".

So, do these sources even mention the post-1902 campaigns and state that they are explicitly not a part of the Philippine-American War? Do you have of any forces explaining that the conflicts after 1902 - the Moro Rebellion, Sakay's rebellion, the Visayan conflicts - are not part of the war that started in 1899 and are, in fact, their own separate wars? The writers who do bring up the post-1902 conflicts primarily argue that they were part of the war. It's an obviously murky argument considering it's not discussed that much in historical discourse. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@141.155.35.58 "...state that they are explicitly not a part of the Philippine-American War?"

They don't need to explicitly state that "post-1902 campaigns" are not part of the "Philippine-American War". The corpus of literature with titles containing the string "Philippine-American War" overwhelmingly define this episode as having occurred between 1899-1902, and do not contain within them, major investigations of "post-1902 campaigns." A novel relabeling of historical episodes proposed by a relatively small body of literature, none of which contain the string "Philippine-American War" in their titles, requires explicit acceptance from the majority of authors who terminated their treatments of the "Philippine-American War" at 1902. Please provide a block quote with page numbers from one of your sources that summarizes the most compelling reason to accept that the military episode labeled "Philippine-American War" actually extended beyond July 4, 1902.

"Do you have of any forces explaining that the conflicts after 1902 are not part of the war that started in 1899 and are, in fact, their own separate wars?"

The complete absence of any literature of any kind, explicitly affirming war in the Philippines past July 4, 1902, from a United States Military Institute or War College, demonstrates that the United States of America was not engaged in a war against the Philippines beyond July 4, 1902. The complete absence of a date-reclassification of archival records by the U.S. Library of Congress or an equivalent institution in the Republic of the Philippines, demonstrates that the United States of America was not engaged in a war against the Philippines beyond July 4, 1902. Your position makes a claim that modifies the dates of a historical episode, and since nobody even knows about the claim, you make the further unacknowledged claim that it is now the "primary consensus". You should consider lobbying U.S. Congress or the Congress of the Philippines to modify archival records.

"The writers who do bring up the post-1902 conflicts primarily argue that they were part of the war."

Let's get into the details of the sources you claim demonstrably show that the "Philippine-American War" extended beyond July 4, 1902. How many U.S. citizens of the American Armed Forces were killed or injured in combat against Philippine Armed Forces personnel after July 4, 1902? Chino-Catane (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

(inserted inline) Maybe I framed my argument incorrectly. In fact the infobox does state that what is "traditionally" considered the Philippine-American War ended in 1902. However, because some writers have argued that the war actually extended beyond that year, as late as 1913, I believe that the dates of the Moro Rebellion (the most prominent and longest of the post-1902 conflicts) be left in the infobox to ease confusions from people who might have initially read from some sources that the war lasted all the way to 1913. To put it another way, it can be argued that the war ended de jure in 1902, but arguably continued de facto after that. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@141.155.35.58 "I believe that the dates of the Moro Rebellion...be left in the infobox to ease confusions..."

You have yet to demonstrate with blockquotes and page numbers, that even a single historian believes what you claim is the "primary consensus" for the end of the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War".

"...some writers have argued that the war actually extended beyond that year..."

Can you please provide the blockquote(s) with page number(s) that illustrate the most compelling argument, in your view, why the world should accept a "de facto" end date for the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" that is later than the "de jure" end date of July 4, 1902? Chino-Catane (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope you guys don't mind a comment here from an outsider editor. I haven't been following this exchange comment-by-comment and I'm not an academic, but the 1902ish date (that may need adjustment to 1904), described as "de jure" above, seems most reasonable to me to use as the basis of this article. In 1904, the U.S. president proclaimed officially that the general hostilities had ended after the opposition had essentially (with a few exceptions) abandoned the field of battle. The Moro rebellion is a separate conflict which overlaps that 1904 date but has little or nothing to do with the conflict in the North, and that is made clear in the U.S. proclamation. The 1899-1902 or 4 conflict developed mostly on Luzon between the U.S. and Philippine revolutionaries following the Battle of Manila (1899). Some historians lump the two conflicts, or parts of them, together and some do not -- WP:DUE is supposed to come into play there. It is not WP's aim to decide which view is right -- just to present both views in a WP:NPOV manner. I don't think that it is a violation of NPOV to present the mostly Luzon conflict here and the mostly Mindanao conflict separately while acknowledging in both presentations that some scholars feel that the two should be presented together. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the "de jure" end date should be at 1902 considering that is when most historians agree the war between the U.S. and the Philippine Republic ended, I have yet to find any sources that state the war ended in 1904. Furthermore the article states that hostilities on Luzon did not end until 1906 when Sakay and his rebels were captured. I still believe that the dates for both the "main" Philippine-American War (1899-1902) and the Moro Rebellion (1899-1913) should remain in the infobox as it has been since 2009, as the article itself states that some writers argue that the Moro Rebellion (and other post-1902 conflicts) are part of the war. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@WtMitchell @141.155.35.58 Thanks for the input. I agree the Moro Rebellion should be mentioned briefly in the article. The point of contention is whether or not the Moro Rebellion should appear in the info box. I have yet to locate a war article rated WP:GA or WP:FA that includes 'campaigns' within its info box extending beyond the war end-date specified in said info box. Moro Rebellion inclusion within the info box represents a subjective category (see WP:DISINFOBOX). A vanishingly small number of Filipino historians and "anti-imperialist" historians may subjectively opine that the "Philippine-American War" extended beyond July 4, 1902 to encompass the entirety of the Moro Rebellion. However, both the "de jure" and "de facto" end date for the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" was no later than July 4, 1902 as proclaimed by Presidents Roosevelt and Macapagal-Arroyo. Their proclamations are affirmed by the vast majority of academic literature, all the contemporaneous news articles, and the U.S. Library of Congress with no objection by an equivalent government institution within the Republic of the Philippines.

"...some writers argue that the Moro Rebellion (and other post-1902 conflicts) are part of the war."

Again, please provide block quotes and page numbers illustrating the most compelling reason why the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" extended beyond the "de jure" end date of July 4, 1902. Let's have a substantive discussion on whether or not this minority view is being given undue weight as described in WP:DUE. A single sentence claiming that "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war" with a single citation to a single author, does not provide sufficient justification to warrant inclusion of the Moro Rebellion in the info box. Chino-Catane (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Even though the number of writers who argue the Moro Rebellion and other post-1902 conflicts in the Philippines is "vanishingly small", as you state, that doesn't make their arguments any less valid and not worth mentioning in the infobox. I am still of the opinion that the dates for the Philippine-American War (between the U.S. and Philippine Republic) and the Moro Rebellion should both be presented in the infobox, only because some writers have stated the latter conflict to be a part of the former, even if it's a "minority" view. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@141.155.35.58 Per revision 1232051390 the claim, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war", fails verification. Discussion of an extended "Philippine-American War" beyond July 4, 1902 appears nowhere within the bounds of the cited pages.

"...doesn't make their arguments any less valid..."

There does not exist a verified citation in this entire article showing that any historians whatsoever have argued or currently argue that "these unofficial extensions" should be considered parts of the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War". If verified citations do exist, please provide block quotes and page numbers to correct the misunderstanding so that the sentence may remain in the article.

"...that doesn't make their arguments ... not worth mentioning in the infobox..."

H:IB states, "Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article." Unless the above mentioned claim is properly verified and expanded upon, the claim itself warrants removal from the article, which in turn warrants removal of the Moro Rebellion from the info box.

"...some writers have stated the latter conflict to be a part of the former..."

Again, please provide block quotes and page numbers from WP:RS that state this. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

ARTICLE OPENER
The first two sentences of this article currently read, "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 1, 1902. Tensions arose after the United States annexed the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris at the conclusion of the Spanish–American War rather than acknowledging the Philippines' declaration of independence."
The precise date for the complete dismantling of fighting capabilities of First Philippine Republic Armed Forces, I contend, is now an unrecoverable data point. I propose replacing these first two sentences with:

The Philippine–American War, known alternatively as the Philippine Insurrection, Filipino–American War, or Tagalog Insurgency, emerged following the conclusion of the Spanish–American War in December 1898 when the United States annexed the Philippine Islands under the Treaty of Paris. Philippine nationalists constituted the First Philippine Republic in January 1899, seven months after signing the Philippine Declaration of Independence. The United States refused to recognize both events, and tensions escalated until fighting commenced on February 4, 1899 in the Battle of Manila.

Are there any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• I suggest changing, "refused to recognize both events" to read, "did not recognize either event as legitimate". Also, while I agree that the precise date for the complete dismantling of fighting capabilities of First Philippine Republic Armed Forces, is now an unrecoverable data point, it is not WP's job to determine that and it flouts some WP policies, WP:DUE in particular, to try doing so. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  "did not recognize either event as legitimate" accepted.

  "...it flouts some WP policies..." : Even supposing your assertion is true, the proposition, "...was fought between the FPR and the US ... until July 4, 1902" is objectively false. My proposal is to simply not make the claim at all. Chino-Catane (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

...
@Wtmitchell Your modification of dates from "July x" to "July 4" improves the article. This is the date I support as marking the "official" end of the "Philippine-American War". However, the article's opening sentence, "The Philippine–American War ... was fought between the First Philippine Republic and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 4, 1902" is untenable. Macapagal-Arroyo declared the war and thus the "First Philippine Republic" ended with Malvar's surrender on April 16. I believe Aguinaldo would have disagreed with her and claimed that the war and thus the "First Philippine Republic" ended with his capture on March 23, 1901. Even supposing that leadership of the "First Philippine Republic" "officially" passed to Malvar upon Aguinaldo's capture, we cannot say with precise certainty the exact day upon which the remnants of the Philippine Revolutionary Army ceased to exist. The sources suggest that even prior to April 16, 1902, all Malvar's men had already abandoned him. This implies that actual fighting between the "First Philippine Republic" and the United States ended even before April 16. There exists an inherent problem claiming that the "First Philippine Republic" "fought" the United States up to some exact date. We can avoid this problem by simply not making the "was fought" claim at all and instead opening the article with something like what I suggested above. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree about "was fought". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A more delicate change would also be problematic. Swapping "was an armed conflict" in place of "was fought" would also lead to a false claim because the First Philippine Republic had been completely dismantled and disarmed before July 4, 1902. Substituting "was a conflict" would not work either because the First Philippine Republic declared itself in January 1899. A "conflict" existed at the moment it was officially promulgated, before February 4, 1899. Chino-Catane (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

-----
moved from article: "However, some Philippine groups—led by veterans of the Katipunan, a Philippine revolutionary society that had launched the revolution against Spain—continued to fight for several more years."
The claim "some Philippine groups - led by veterans..." requires production of at least 3 such veterans. Currently, there is only one. Chino-Catane (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

-----
DETAILS TO BE REINSERTED IN ARTICLE BODY
On June 2, after U.S. denial of an armistice request, the Philippine Council of Government issued a proclamation urging its people to continue fighting.

References