Talk:Spanish–American War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 Spain (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated C-class, Top-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cuba (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Roosevelt listed as a leader?[edit]

If I recall correctly Roosevelt was a Lt. Colonel under Leonard Wood. First, does it make sense to list someone as a leader in a major war who was only a LTC? Second, does it make sense to list him and not list the then Full Bird Wood, who became a celebrated general in his own right?

I understand that Roosevelt became president and won the nobel prize and so forth, but little of that had to do with the Spanish American war. He would have arguably been in more of a senior leadership position if he had retained his position as undersecretary of the Navy. The whole thing seems a bit like listing Corporal Hitler as a leader in WWI solely because he went on later to do big important things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.37.2 (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed assertion that the U.S. "backed" the Philippine Revolution.[edit]

Here, I've removed ", which the U.S. later backed upon entering the Spanish-American War", re the Philippine Revolution, and have rearranged the text a bit. This has been in the article for a long time ([1]). Commodore Dewey certainly facilitated the resumption of the revolution (which had been suspended in 1897 by the Pact of Biak-na-Bato) by returning Emil Aguinaldo to Manila from exile in Hong Kong, and this is explained a bit further down in this same section of the article. Asserting that the U.S. "backed" the revolution, though, overstates the extent and the depth of U.S. commitment in that regard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

who's a prominent/specialist historian/professor in the Philippines on this war?[edit]

I'm going there soon, and have a large folio of photos taken by my grandfather, Endre Johannes Cleven during his service with the US Army there in 1898-99; not sure of his discharge date, but he was back in Norway en route to Canada by 1900 so I don't think he stuck around for the Philippine-American War. I'd like some help if I can find it tracing his regiment's activities, and also nailing down the locations, and will undertake to photograph them as they are now as a project. I think the gallery is here but I have login issues to do with a bad clock on my motherboard so flickr won't let me see that for now.Skookum1 (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To Skookum1: You might have better luck getting advice from people who post on genealogy/family history sites or perhaps sites for US Army veterans. Since Wikipedia is not focused on primary sources (see WP:PSTS), people with research experience in such sources, which are the ones you probably need, aren't as likely to visit here and even less likely to contribute here, in my experience.
When you post at such places, I'd ask for "advice or help." Just asking for help makes it sound a little like you're focusing on finding someone to work through stuff directly with you, and while that would be great, even tips on where to look can be helpful.
If that doesn't work and you're in the Phillipines, I'd go to a university and (assuming you're in an English-speaking area or know the local language—WP says the official languages are Filipino and English, with 19 recognized regional languages) ask around the history department and the library and library sciences department.
Good luck! I hope this helps somewhat. --Geekdiva (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This isn't the place for it (see WP:TPG and WP:NOT) but I'll briefly mention that the National Library of the Philippines and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines are located within easy walking distance of one another in Rizal Park. However, some googling turned up this source which says, "The 203rd New York Volunteer Infantry served its term of service within the continental U.S. during the Spanish American War." (and does list Private Cleven, Endre J.). Also see [2]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll be in the Philippines again soon (I'm in Cambodia for now) so will go look up those libraries; and yes I'd seen that about the 203rd before; but he was a medic/medical photographer and US Army Musical Corps so maybe not part of the regular 203rd as such i.e. not combat troops. He was discharged in the Philippines for sure though. I know about WP:TPG and WP:NOT (long-experienced editor) but was having no luck online or in asking Filipinos I know what they might know of who to ask. A lot of what's in the album is certainly of training camps in the US, though.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Errors in Photographic Editing[edit]

The photographic editing is wrong.

Please check the masts and crows nests in each image.

KJC1973 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Cession of the Philippines and $20 million payment by the U.S.[edit]

This edit caught my eye. I don't have a problem with the edit but I don't follow the edit summary ("No mention of $20 million-payout for ceding Spanish imperial territory. Hence the term, 'cede'") and I'm concerned that confusion might develop in the absence of clarifying information. Some points:

  • Spain did cede the Philippines to the U.S. -- the word "cedes" appears explicitly in Article III of the Treaty of Paris (1898) (later TofP) which ended the war.[1]
  • In a paragraph of that treaty article separate from the paragraph re the cession, the U.S. agreed to pay Spain $20M. The TofP does not spell out the reason for the paymant.[1]
  • Many sources (e.g., [3], [4]) support this without drawing conclusions about the connectedness or lack thereof between the cession and the payment.
  • Some sources (e.g., [5], [6], [7] characterize this as Spain selling the Philippines to the U.S.; generally without explaining this characterization.
  • One source [8] explains, "The nature of this payment is rather difficult to define; it was paid neither to purchase Spanish territories nor as a war indemnity. In the words of Historian Leon Wolff, 'It was ... a gift. Spain accepted it. ...". (see Wolff, Leon (1961). Little Brown Brother: How the United States Purchased and Pacified the Philippine Islands at the Century's Turn. Wolff Productions. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-1-58288-209-3. )
  • (added) Another source ([9]) says that cession of the Philippines involved payment of $20 million ($566,960,000 today) to Spain by the US to cover infrastructure owned by Spain.

WP:NPOV should be exercised by WP editors in asserting any connectedness or lack of connectedness between the cession and the payment. If assertions about this appear in WP articles, WP:DUE should be the guiding policy point. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If the payment were unrelated to the rest of article III, one would suppose it would be a separate article. As worded, it concludes article III, and is part of that article. The unsuspecting reader of the Treaty is left unaware of diverse interpretations, and left to assume that it is related. TEDickey (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The treaty is a primary source. Your argument above grows from your interpretation of that primary source. WP:PRIMARY, part of the WP:NOR policy, says in part, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Secondary sources which provide interpretations re the connectedness or lack thereof between the cession and the payment differ in the viewpoints they express. WP:DUE, part of the WP:NPOV policy describes how a situation with separate reliable sources expressing differing viewpoints should be handled. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is pointless: you are free to add the sources of your choice, with whatever interpretation you find interesting to the TofP topic. bye. TEDickey (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
There's good brief coverage of what happened at Benjamin R. Beede (2013). The War of 1898 and U.S. Interventions, 1898T1934: An Encyclopedia. p. 289. . The $20 million was part of the negotiating process and nominally was given to cover the cost of infrastructure that Spain owned, such as buildings and port facilities. Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that you have WP:BOLDly edited the article to reflect the viewpoint of that source, and only that viewpoint. I have seen that viewpoint mentioned elsewhere, and it sounds reasonable to me. I've added it to my list of sourced viewpoints above -- I would have listed it previously but it didn't come up in the quick googling I did to put the list together. I wasn't able to find that book at your provided link ([10]) but did find it at [11], and page 289 there does say that the US peace commissioners recommended to Washington that the $20M be presented as covering the cost of public improvements which had been made by Spain.
I acknowledge that you are a credentialed historian, and that I am not (though I am fairly well read up on Philippine history in Spanish and American colonial times).
However, that said, it is not Wikipedia's policy to reflect the viewpoint which is put forth by a source favored by a particular WP editor or by a group of WP editors if that viewpoint is at variance with viewpoints put forth by other sources considered to be RSs. WP:DUE sets out Wikipedia policy (shouting -- sorry) regarding this, saying, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
What we have here is one source (Beede's 1898 encyclopedia) That explicitly explains what happened. With multiple other sources that do not offer a a viewpoint or alternative analysis or explanation, but which seem to be puzzled or befuddled. in a nutshell We have only one explanation, and that is what we should report. Rjensen (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)