Talk:Philippine Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rearranging the table of equipments[edit]

Investigations revealed that User:Geeciii is the sock of a recently blocked editor and that he's been blocked as his actions here are evidently nothing less than trolling. Case tagged, bagged and closed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to rearrange the order of the table like in this order first is the small arms (infantry weapons), next is the armoured vehicles followed by utility vehicles, then the artillery, next is the aircrafts and the last one is the watercrafts. Does anyone agree with this?

06:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii (talkcontribs)

  • Take it ONE step at a time, young'un. FWIW, you're still new here and I would rather that you update things in a step-by-step fashion instead of doing it the wholesale method. Should there be any major update, everything has to be: 1.) relevant (per WP:Relevance); 2.) notable (per WP:Notability); 3.) verifiable (per WP:Verifiability); and lastly 4.) comforming to our WP:Manual of Style, that goes for the non-addition of photo in the columns and flag-icons where they are not supposed to be present in. Any other question you want to raise here? Another thing, learn to sign off every of your comment with ~~~~ which would automatically timestamp and add your username for us to know, thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Updated the Philippine Army Article based on the Philippine Army Official Website -Geeciii (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding a new column for photos in the table of equipments[edit]

Investigations revealed that User:Geeciii is the sock of a recently blocked editor and that he's been blocked as his actions here are evidently nothing less than trolling. Case tagged, bagged and closed.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to add photos of the different equipments. The photos that I will use is from their respective articles. They will be put on the first column. Does everyone okay with my idea? 06:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii (talkcontribs)

  • Geeciii, use photos of photos is OK as long as they are correct and the photos itself are Philippine Army assets, not coming from another army or ground force. And do not take out information anyhow.

Phichanad (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Not alright as Geeciii has a strong tendency to use related as well as unrelated photos that are not directly pictured in PA service for use in the column. Instead, please focus on the building up of the article page content rather than photos when the scarcity of such photos is profusely profound and that such photos are used mainly for the cosmetic upgrading of the article page. Geeciii, try to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that we are not paid up website for the promotion of any entity and/or person on earth. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Artemio Ricarte as the father of the Philippine Army[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The lead section of this article asserts, "Though the Philippine Army grew out of forces which fought in opposition to and which defeated forces led by General Artemio Ricarte, General Ricarte is considered to be the father of the Philippine Army." This is supported by an apparently dead link source. If the "father of the Philippine Army" assertion is supportable, the rest of the assertion here needs support and clarification. It seems to me that if this is to remain in the article, it should be supported, clarified, and expanded somewhere outside of the lead section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

He is regarded as Father of the Philippine Army because of his election as Captain General, and the integration of the separated Katipunan units under the Tejeros mandated Philippine Revolutionary Army under him. It just turns out that Ricarte had not come into good terms with Aguinaldo, especially on the Pact of Biak-na-Bato (it must be a treaty anyway, not a pact), so maybe that's where they got that statement. For me, its better that it should be removed altogether. Just retain Ricarte being the father of the Philippine Army. Arius1998 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Firstoff, I acknowledge my error above in saying that the content at issue is in the lead section; it is in the History section.
The assertion that Ricarte is regarded as the Father of the Philippine Army cries out for solid support and lots of well supported clarification -- at least that seems so to me, given the Philippine Army's history as having been initially organized from among former holders of reserve commissions in the United States Army, from among former officers of the Philippine Scouts and Philippine Constabulary and given Ricarte's history as having been a senior commander of forces which were in armed conflict with these predecessor organizations. I am not disputing that Ricarte might be so regarded by some people. If it is to be asserted (even implied) that the Philippine Army as an organization holds Ricarte in that regard, however, it seems to me that ought to be better supported and (given those histories I mentioned, and given some of the unsupported info in Artemio Ricarte#Post-War Era) it seems to me that clarification about how he came to be so regarded ought to be provided. I suspect that my not being a nationalistic Filipino has much to do with with my "take" on this.
The Philippine Army web page located at http://www.afp.mil.ph/index.php/2013-04-30-08-34-40/2013-04-30-07-43-43 does say that Ricarte is considered the Father of the Philippine Army. That Philippine Army web page, however, seems to be based on an earlier version of this very Wikipedia article -- probably sometime subsequent to this edit by me. I'm wondering whether whoever authorized or emplaced that Philippine Army web page read the Wikipedia article it came from closely enough to pick up on the assertion there about Ricarte being considered the Father of the Philippine Army. If that assertion is valid it ought to be supportable by reliable sources and, as I said above, it cries out for clarification.
It seems to me that there is a tendency in the Philippines to sometimes gloss over what one book calls "the American half-century" in Philippine history. Something like that seems to be at work here -- but perhaps the clarification I'm looking for here would clear that up for me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
TRUE: General Artemio Ricarte was the Capitan-General of the "Ejercito en la Republica de la Filipina" (Philippine Revolutionary Army). General Ricarte was never was never under the command of the U.S Army.
FALSE: General Ricarte is the "Father" of the Philippine Army. The roots of the Philippine Army are the Philippine Scouts and the Philippine Constabulary under the Americans.
TRUE: The Father of the Philippine Army as established and organized under the National Defense Act of December 21,1935 (Commonwealth Act No. 1) is General Douglas MacArthur. He was the Field Marshal of the American-led and backed Philippine Army.
TRUE: The founding date of the present day Philippine Army was 1935 not 1898.
SOLUTION: Such claims can only be valid if there is a new law recognizing that the Philippine Army was officially founded on March 22, 1897 and organized by the First Philippine Republic. Unfortunately, the only existing law regarding the formation of the Philippine Army is the National Defense Act of December 21,1935 (Commonwealth Act No. 1) under the Americans.
PROPOSAL: Therefore the questionable entries regarding Artemio Ricarte as Father or being a part of the Philippine Army should be deleted. You can not cite Wikipedia as your source -- refer to Verifiability guidelines. TheMilitaryExpert (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
Note: Updated article by removing the disputed sentence as per Wikipedia Verifiability guidelines and a clear consensus. TheMilitaryExpert (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to add some information in re the above closed discussion.

  • Today's version of this article says in part, "The Philippine Army, as the ground forces branch of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), traces its roots to the Tejeros Convention of March 22, 1897, ...".
  • The solution statement above says in part, "Such claims can only be valid if there is a new law recognizing that the Philippine Army was officially founded on March 22, 1897 and organized by the First Philippine Republic. "
  • I happened to stumble over Proclamation No. 447, s. 1989 today which mandates in part, "That March 22 be observed as the anniversary of the Philippine Army, a major branch of the Armed Forces of the Philippines."
  • The current version of the official Philippine Army History web page Doesn't mention the roles which the Philippine Scouts (PS) and the Philippine Constabulary (PC) played in the history of the current Philippine Army, saying instead "Between [1901] until 1935, the revolutionary army lost many of its cohorts in sporadic engagements with American troops, but never lost its cause."

I think that it is fair and probably supportable to say, as the article now does, that the Philippine Army "traces its roots to the Tejeros Convention of March 22, 1897" (traces its own roots, that is). I don't have reference material handy just now but, as I remember having gone through this previously, other sources trace the roots of the present day Philippine Army more directly to the PS and the PC than to the Tejeros Convention and the Philippine Revolutionary Army which grew out of it. I note that this article does mention the PS and PC in regard to the history of the Philippine Army. I'm not at this point suggesting a change in the article but, having put this info together, I thought that I would document it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Philippine Revolutionary Army[edit]

I have moved the initial paragraph of the Philippine–American War (1899-1902) section of this article here for discussion. That paragraph concerned itself with the Philippine Revolutionary Army (PRA), and was added without support in this October 2016 edit. As it appeared before I moved it here, it read as follows:

On February 4, 1899, the Filipino-American War broke out. Due to the superiority of American arms, the Filipinos fell from one position to another until they were forced to disband. Even after the official cessation of hostilities and as the Americans have established government in 1901, the Filipino revolutionaries continued their struggle for freedom. Between that time until 1935, the revolutionary army lost many of its cohorts in sporadic engagements with American troops, but never lost its cause.

What caught my eye about the paragraph was the bit reading "the Filipinos fell from one position to another". "fell" there was probably intended to read "fell back".

However, what grates on me about this paragraph is that it begs the inference that the PRA was an organizational forerunner of the current Philippine Army. That has been much discussed in the past and, as far as I can see, is simply not true. In this speech marking the centennial of the end of the Philippine-American War, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo acknowledged that the First Philippine Republic ended with the capture of Emilio Aguinaldo on March 23, 1901, commented that some Filipino generals fought on after that date under the leadership of General Miguel Malvar, and acknowledged asserted that the war ended with the surrender of General Malvar on April 16, 1902. As far as I can see, the Philippine Revouutionary Army as an entity ceased to exist on or prior to April 16, 1902 and the Philippines had no army from that point up until the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 1 on December 21, 1935.

I suggest that the paragraph quoted above be simply removed from the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)