Talk:Philippine–American War

Mr. Joseph Hall-Patton moves Philippine-American War end-date to 1913 in YouTube video

Revision 1232408057 is an improvement, as it provides multiple citations to qualify the assertion that "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war". Per original research span guidance, this discussion is being started to address the use of Joseph Hall-Patton's YouTube video to support the aforementioned assertion. While Mr. Hall-Patton has earned the title of historian, he is not a subject-matter expert on the Philippine-American War. His self-published YouTube video concerning the subject does not establish him as a "subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." WP:SPS sets this as the condition under which self-published expert sources may be considered reliable. Unless it can be demonstrated that Mr. Hall-Patton's work on the Philippine-American War has been published by reliable, independent publications, the citation in question warrants removal.

• As a side note, the Vine and Immerwahr citations in the above mentioned revision require page number specifications for verification.

Chino-Catane (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not know how to cite specific page numbers of sources. If you know how to here are the links to the books I cited:

How to Hide an Empire, A Greater History of the United States: epub includes a statement at end of Philippine-American War chapter, "Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom", that the war overall lasted until 1913.

The United States of War states, on page 122, argues that the "Philippines independence movement" lasted "formally" until 1902, but then states that, "fighting continued sporadically until 1913". There is also a map in this chapter that denotes the Philippine-American War as lasting until that year.

Also I am curious to hear about what an "expert" on this particular subject might entail. Perhaps a writer on U.S. military history or American foreign policy? 141.155.35.58 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the page numbers. Vine writes,

"Under U.S. occupation and a war to crush the Philippines independence movement that formally lasted until 1902, hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians died from direct violence in war, disease, and starvation. Tens of thousands of Filipino combatants and more than 4,200 U.S. soldiers died. Fighting continued sporadically until 1913, likely taking thousands more lives. Most deaths occurred in the Muslim-majority southern islands of Mindanao."

This is not equivalent to stating, "The Philippine-American War lasted until 1913".

Thus far, a single verified citation confirms that one historian maintains the view that the "Philippine War" lasted until 1913. This is expressed in a book titled How to Hide an Empire, A History of the Greater United States. The author dedicates 21 pages of prose out of 435 to the "Philippine War". that's less than 5% of the book. Clearly, the "Philippine War" is not the author's primary topic of investigation. He remarks in the notes at the end of the book, "There are many histories of the Philippine War, especially between 1899 and 1902."

WP:RSUW paraphrases Jimmy Wales as stating, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.."

WP:SPS addresses your last question. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." In this situation, it must be shown that Mr. Hall-Patton has produced work on the "Philippine-American War" that has been published by reliable, independent publications.

I propose 1 week is ample time to produce citations that justify inclusion within this article of the claim, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." After such time, if those citations are not produced, I propose moving this claim to the talk page pending further support and modifying the info box to reflect this removal. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I object to the dates of the Moro Rebellion being removed from the infobox primarily due to the fact that it has remained there since 2008 and was largely uncontested until now, and some writers, such as Daniel Immerwahr and Samuel K. Tan consider the Moro Rebellion as part of the war. It is stated in the body of the article that some writers consider events such as the Moro Rebellion as part of the Philippine-American War, which is also reflected on the Moro Rebellion's page. Furthermore, the campaign box lists battles of the war that happened after 1902 and are considered on their respective pages to be a part of the war (see Battle of Dolores River and Battle of the Malala River, for example). To remove all references to the Moro Rebellion and other post-1902 conflicts from the infobox would also require removing all references across Wikipedia to the Philippine-American War or events related to it occurring after 1902, which would be too much of a major overhaul and is unfeasible. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor 141.155.35.58: Thanks for sharing your concerns.
"...it has remained there since 2008 and was largely uncontested until now..."
A review of the archives reveals that no one cared enough to check the claim, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." The veracity of this assertion is highly dubious and has yet to be established upon challenge. A single citation referencing a single historian who spends less than 5% of his book discussing the "Philippine War" does not warrant juxtaposing his lone view with the canonical view that the "Philippine-American War" ended in 1902 and that the "Moro Rebellion" was a partly coincident but separate conflict, as far as subject-matter experts are concerned.

"...some writers, such as Daniel Immerwahr and Samuel K. Tan..."
Please provide block quote(s) and page number(s) expressing Tan's most compelling reason(s) why his labeling of the "Filipino-American War" should be juxtaposed with a canonical view in an encyclopedic article. Perhaps the view warrants its own ancillary article, but it does not warrant prominent display in this one. It may warrant brief mention in the Aftermath section if you can furnish page numbers. You still have not addressed the observation made above about WP:RSUW stating that viewpoints held by an extremely small minority do not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article).

"...It is stated in the body of the article that some writers..."
The assertion is unsupported, and its weakness is clearly flagged in the article. Thus far, the descriptor Some does not apply, but the descriptor One does apply. If you can provide page numbers in Tan's work that survive verification, the descriptor Two would apply. Given the proposed evidence offered thus far, the assertion is objectively false.

"...require removing all references across Wikipedia to the Philippine-American War..."
This is a hyperbolic claim, and I doubt it is true. Even supposing it is true, all instances of false claims must eventually be corrected.

"...which would be too much of a major overhaul and is unfeasible.."
The operation you describe as "unfeasible" is a trivial task.

Please address my criticisms as I have always addressed each and every one of your claims. You continue to make the assertion that "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." I await the evidence. If you can establish the veracity of this claim, then we can move on to discussing WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE weight. It should not take more than a week to support this claim with verified sources if it is in fact true. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (comment from the sidelines) I'm presently traveling and major involvement in a WP discussion is difficult for me. However, as this seems to be developing in that direction, I'm going to comment at this point.

The lead sentence of an article should make it clear what the topic of this article is. MOS:FIRST supports this. This is of major importance since there are different viewpoints on this. This article covers the conflict with the US and Aguinaldo's revolutionaries in the North being belligerents. Roughly at the conclusion of that conflict, the Moro Rebellion developed in the South with US and a different group of revolutionaries having little or no connection to Aguinaldo's group as belligerents. WP covers these two conflicts in two separate articles. The opening paras of both of those articles should make this clear and a section or a footnote in both articles should explain why this is so, without introducing much detail from the other article. I think that this implies that details such as a list battles from that other conflict do not belong in the infobox of an article about this conflict. I think that edits to action this should be made now, out of consideration for users encountering the articles as they exist now. If discussion brings about a consensus to change this, it can be changed then

I believe that it is clear that high levels of the US govt were focused on the conflict described in this article in early July 1902, though they were aware that the other conflict existed and would not conclude with the conclusion of this conflict. TR's proclamation makes that clear by saying clearly that fighting continues "in the country inhabited by the Moro tribes" and that it does not apply there. Section three of the Organic Act, as I read it, allows US presidential war powers to continue to be used in dealing with challenges to US sovereignty other than the conflict his proclamation declared ended -- even though the US military government in the Philippines was being terminated. While I am traveling, I can't get into it much deeper than that but I thought that I ought to say that much at this point. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• If the previous opening sentence structure is preferred, I propose the following: "The Philippine-American War ... was an armed conflict between the First Philippine Republic and the United States lasting from 1899 to 1902." This avoids the twin problems of assigning a precise end-date to the cessation of "fighting" and choosing between two officially recognized end-dates.
• "...details such as a list battles from that other conflict do not belong in the infobox of an article about this conflict. I think that edits to action this should be made now, out of consideration for users encountering the articles as they exist now. If discussion brings about a consensus to change this, it can be changed then" I agree. Chino-Catane (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

While I don't support removing any references to the Moro Rebellion from the article, if a broader consensus emerges that the conflict is definitively not a part of the war discussed by this article, perhaps a disclaimer could be added to the top of the article that states something along the lines of, "This article is about the war between the United States and the First Philippine Republic fought from 1899 to 1902, for the longer conflict between the U.S. and Moro People, see Moro Rebellion". Would you support this? 141.155.35.58 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor 141.155.35.58: I have no objections to a carefully considered advertisement of the Moro Rebellion at the top of this article.

• "...if a broader consensus emerges that the conflict is definitively not a part of the war..."
  

The claim, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war" has been challenged and must survive scrutiny. An indefensible proposition cannot remain in the article. If evidence is not produced to support the claim, it should be removed. Consequences of that removal would naturally follow. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Background section

Aguinaldo's exile and return subsection has grown to occupy the third largest subsection in the entire article at 756 words. In a previous version it was expressed in a crisp 383 words. Why do contested details of the political intrigues of a single individual warrant much more attention relative to all other elements of this 'war'? Was the "Philippine-American War" primarily about Aguinaldo? I propose trimming this subsection to no more than 500 words. Detailed presentations of Aguinaldo's political exploits can be placed in the advertised Main article: Hong Kong Junta. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Origins of the conflict section

This section is 2,833 words long while the "War" section is only 2,298 words long. This is completely out of proportion. I propose trimming this section and expanding the "War" section. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Where should the detail be moved? CMD (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If any particular bit of detail warrants inclusion in a Wikipedia article at all, it can be moved to a "Main article" or other related article, and then advertised. Chino-Catane (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I raise the question as there is not a main article for many of the relevant subsections, unlike the section you raise above. CMD (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

To editor CMD: Thanks for raising the concerns. Trimmings warranting inclusion in a Wikipedia article can go in Battle of Manila (1898), Spanish–American War and Benevolent assimilation. Chino-Catane (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarity

There's a lot of different links that should be more advertised such as the Balangiga Massacre and additional information because it isn't very clear. I think that a group with all the evenement linked to that conflict should be more presented or at least shown more clearly. Madxsxxx (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes in re March across Samar

The March across Samar apparently does not now have the content expected in the context of a wikilink from here, so I have made this edit to avoid that wikilink. The edit moves mention and wikilinking of the Balangiga massacre from the Resistance section to the American atrocities section, which might ought to be improved by a better wordsmith than I. Re the location of that mention and wikilink, please note that the Balangiga massacre took place five or six months after Aguinaldo's capture & surrender and the dissolution of the First Philippine Republic and, at that point, Vincente Lukban was arguably running a rogue guerilla operation in Samar. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)