Talk:Philippine–American War/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Serious cite problems in this article

This article clearly has serious cite problems, and has had for a number of years. The cite numbered "1." in the current article version is apparently claimed to support five separate assertions in the article on page 293 of one of the two volumes of the cited work -- it's not clear whether it is referring to page 293 of voloume I or volume II of that work. Part of that problem seems to have appeared in thisDecember 25, 2016 edit, but there are a number of other problems with other cites as well -- just look for red-colored text with the word error in it in the article.

At present, I haven't looked much more closely than that. I will be taking a look and trying to fix some of the problems, but it looks like that will stretch out over some time. I would appreciate help with that. It would probably be useful to have some discussion here before major work is done on this.

For reference, this is a fix I've just done to only one of the numerous cite problems in this article.

Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC) (rev i)

I have pulled out all the unused longrefs. Usually I put them in Further reading pending curation, but there were a lot, so I have placed them in the collapse box below. I have fixed one missing longref issue that was a result of my incomplete edits over the past few days. There is one missing longref issue remaining, that of Miller 1984. There are currently other shortcites on this article pointing to Miller 1982, however that appears to be the same book, and the longref is linked to the 1984 version, so it may be best for all the 1982 cites to be changed to 1984.
Unused sources
  • Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1997). Malolos: The crisis of the republic. Philippine studies reprint series. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. ISBN 978-9715420969.
  • Anderson, Gerald R. (2009). Subic Bay from Magellan to Pinatubo: The History of the U.S. Naval Station, Subic Bay. Gerald Anderson. ISBN 978-1-4414-4452-3.
  • Arnold, James R. (2011). The Moro War: How America Battled a Muslim Insurgency in the Philippine Jungle, 1902-1913. New York City: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-60819-365-3.
  • Bayor, Ronald H. (2004). The Columbia Documentary History of Race and Ethnicity in America. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-11994-1.
  • Blitz, Amy (2000). The Contested State: American Foreign Policy and Regime Change in the Philippines. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-9935-8.
  • Brooks, Van Wyck (1920). Ordeal of Mark Twain. E.P. Dutton & Company.
  • Chambers, John W.; Anderson, Fred (1999). The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-507198-0.
  • Chapman, William (1988). Inside the Philippine revolution. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1-85043-114-5.
  • Coker, Kathy R. (1989). The Signal Corps and the U.S. Army Regimental System. U.S. Army Signal Center.
  • Coker, Kathy R.; Stokes, Carol E. (1991). A Concise History of the U.S. Army Signal Corps. U.S. Army Signal Center.
  • Feuer, A. B. (2002). America at War: The Philippines, 1898–1913. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-275-96821-9.
  • Gates, John M. (1973). Schoolbooks and Krags: The United States Army in the Philippines, 1898–1902. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-8371-5818-4.
  • Gates, John M. (1983). "War-Related Deaths in the Philippines, 1898–1902". Pacific Historical Review. 53 (367): 367–78. doi:10.2307/3639234. JSTOR 3639234. PMID 11635503.
  • Gates, John M. (2002). The U.S. Army and Irregular Warfare (PDF). Wooster, Ohio: The College of Wooster.
  • Giddings, Howard A. (1900). Exploits of the Signal Corps in the War With Spain. Hudson-Kimberly Publishing Co. pp. 15–16, 83.
  • Guevara, Sulpico, ed. (1972). The laws of the first Philippine Republic (the laws of Malolos) 1898–1899. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Library.
  • Hamilton, Richard F. (2007). President McKinley and America's "New Empire". Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7658-0383-2.
  • Joaquin, Nicomedes (1977). A Question of Heroes. ISBN 971-27-1545-0.
  • Kumar, Amitava (1999). Poetics/Politics: Radical Aesthetics for the Classroom. Palgrave. ISBN 0-312-21866-4.
  • Lacsamana, Leodivico Cruz (1990). Philippine History and Government (2nd ed.). Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. ISBN 971-06-1894-6.
  • May, Glenn Anthony (1991). Battle for Batangas: A Philippine Province at War. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-04850-5.
  • Meyer, Carlton (2019). The American Invasion of the Philippines. California: G2mil.
  • Minahan, James (2002). Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations: L-R. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-32111-5.
  • Paine, Albert Bigelow (1912). Mark Twain: A Biography: The Personal and Literary Life of Samuel Langhorne Clemens. Harper & Brothers. Archived from the original on 2013-11-17.
  • Painter, Nell Irvin (1989). Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877–1919. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-30588-0.
  • Schirmer, Daniel B. (1972). Republic or Empire: American Resistance to the Philippine War. Schenkman. ISBN 0-87073-105-X.
  • Shaw, Angel Velasco (2002). Vestiges of War: The Philippine–American War and the Aftermath of an Imperial Dream, 1899–1999. New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-9791-1.
  • Wildman, Edwin (1901). Aguinaldo: A Narrative of Filipino Ambitions (PDF). Norwood, Massachusetts: Norwood Press.
  • Wolff, Leon (1960). Little Brown Brother: How the United States Purchased and Pacified the Philippine Islands at the Century's Turn. Doubleday & Company, Inc. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 61-6528.
  • Wolters, Willem G. (2004). Gin, Ooi Keat (ed.). Southeast Asia: A historical encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor. Vol. II. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-57607-770-5.
  • Young, Kenneth Ray (1994). The General's General: The Life and Times of Arthur Macarthur. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
  • Zwick, Jim (1992). Mark Twain's Weapons of Satire: Anti-Imperialist Writings on the Philippine–American War. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-0268-5.
  • Zwick, Jim. Friends of the Filipino People Bulletin.
  • Zwick, Jim (1982). Militarism and Repression in the Philippines. Centre for Developing-Area Studies, McGill University. ISBN 0-88819-054-9.
  • Zwick, Jim (1992). Prodigally Endowed with Sympathy for the Cause: Mark Twain's Involvement with the Anti-Imperialist League. Ephemera Society of America. ASIN B0006R8RJ8.
CMD (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I used to have a copy of one edition of that book, but I no longer have it and I see that the book is not available in my local library. I see that the 1982 edition is partially previewable here. I've reverified the assertions cited to p.20 and pp.20-21 there. p.24 is not previewable there but, rolling the dice, my guess is that would be verifiable as well. I'd say that it's probably OK to change the 1984 cites to 1982. -(added) I see that this came in here, copied from History of the Philippines (1898–1946) and that it appeared in that article here, added by me. I probably added that with one or the other edition of the book in front of me and introduced the confusion between editions at some point by not looking at publication dates. Anyhow, from what I've seen here, the two editions appear to match well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC) (rev 1)
Could you double check what version you verified to, as the link you provided is the one Gbooks claims is the 1984 version. The 1982 version is supposedly this one. That said, while the copyright pages are formatted differently, the supposed 1984 one doesn't say 1984. CMD (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll put that on the back burner for now -- I have other things to do ahead of it. I may buy another copy of that book and reverify in whatever edition that turns out to be. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I looked at the two {Linn 2000} cites, which are to different books. I used to have this one, titled The Philippine War, 1899–1900, and no doubt made the edits related to that one but I see that it is in the Further reading section, not References where it ought to be. Those two cites might or might not be to the same book under different titles, but they probably ought to include |ref={{harvid|Linn|2000}}a for one and b for the other. I haven't dug further than that on this one. {added-1) I see that the one I didn't recognize was added here as a Further reading item. Now, however, it is cited to support an article assertion. The cited pages are previewable and support the assertions in the para where cited except for the final sentence (I recall that sentence being supported elsewhere, but it's not supported there). The (Linn 2000) cites probably ought to be changed to cite that book here (perhaps except for that sentence), and the other Linn cites made to cite the other book. I'll make that a to-do unless there's objection (no time right now). (add-2) I made this edit to fix these. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC) (rev 2)
  • Tucker 2009, Worcester 1914, and the new Dolan 1991 duplicate fixed in their immediate duplications (all strict duplicates). This leaves a mixture of more specific chapter links and overall book links, but nevertheless the short refs now work. Are there any other short ref issues outside of Miller? CMD (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The problems which were causing all those error messages have been fixed, which effectively closes this discussion. More work on the cites is needed, but that doesn't need further discussion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ending date

This edit caught my eye, and drew my attention to the assertion jere of the 1902 ending date for the war. That brought to mind this note which I recently added to a related article, and the supporting sources it cites. Looking further took me to Timeline of the Philippine–American War § Start and ending dates, which I see that I contributed to back in 2014 with this edit (and perhaps others as well).

The upshot of all that is (1) that there apparently is no universally accepted ending date for this conflict, (2) that separate WP articles handle that in different ways, and (3) that this article handles it by asserting that one particular date is the date-certain ending date. I suggest that this be changed here by adding a note here clarifying the situation similar to the note which I linked above in the First Philippine Republic article That article examples a candidate ending date, and the note clarifies the uncertainness of that candidate date, mentions other candidates, and cites sources supporting the candidates mentioned. However, the date-certain asserted by this article differs from the candidate date exampled in that other article, and that needs to be resolved by consensus.

Perhaps some other approach to dealing with this would be better. Please discuss below. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Added info: The 1902 ending date for the war given in this article is supported by a cite of page 292 of this source, apparently relying on the following quote of a description of the conflict by John R. M. Taylor which begins on page 290 of that work:

On July 2 the Secretary of War telegraphed that the insurrection against the sovereign authority of the United States in the Philippines having come to an end, and provincial civil governments having been established throughout the entire territory of the archipelago not inhabited by Moro tribes, the office of military governor in the archipelago was terminated. On July 4, 1902, the President of the United States issued a proclamation of amnesty proclaiming, with certain reservations, a full and complete pardon and amnesty to all persons in the Philippine Archipelago who had participated in the insurrection

The July 2 date is apparently the date on which Secretary of War Elihu Root sent that telegram. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Fresh look at this -- no action for now

I've held off making edits following on the above while spending time on other mostly unrelated things. However, something very much related came up yesterday in the form of this edit, which I made in another article to correct this incorrect and unsupported assertion -- I've been making the same sort of error above which the anon who made that edit made there -- the time span between the two events is more than a few months; I knew the difference if I stopped to think about it, but I hadn't stopped to think about it.

So, even though the war was not ended by a treaty establishing a firm ending date, the July 2, 1902 ending date asserted in this article seems like a reasonable date to me. I still quibble with the clarification in para 2 of the lead taking Elihu Root's July 2 telegram as a declaration by the U.S. government that the war ended on that date and I may tweak the wording there or add a clarifying footnote, but the July 2m 1902 date now seems to me like a reasonable date to take in this article as the ending date of the war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Confusing Background section

There are two aspects of the background section that are really confusing to a reader. The first is that the section doesn't make clear that the Spanish-American War was ongoing throughout the period from the Revolution onwards. The second, which compounds this issue is the sentence, "The Philippine Declaration of Independence was not recognized by either the United States or Spain, and the Spanish government ceded the Philippines to the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris, which was signed on December 10, 1898, in consideration for an indemnity for Spanish expenses and assets lost." This is actually a flash-forward, but it gives the impression that the war is over at this point and the following sections become very confusing. Furius (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Undid removal of cite-supported content

This edit with an edit summary reading (Remove "German support" due to very vague and un-authoritative source. Brief accusation of Aguinaldo being a "german puppet" of some newspaper article)caught my eye. Here, I have reverted the portion related to the edit summary because it is not clear to me that the cited supporting source (an article from The San Francisco Call) is WP:UNRELIABLE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: Its nothing more than an vague accusation in a headline from some article next to ones like "Aguinaldo is a clown, his men ruffians". Is there a real source from a historian detailing this alleged "German support"? or should information about Aguinaldo clownishness be added as well? --Havsjö (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I took another look, and now see that both of those articles on the cited newspaper page appear to be letters to the editor from a person named Sol N. Sheridan and not news pieces. I previously thought that the one cited in support was a news piece, looked at the WP article about the newspaper and was not clear from that about what your edit summary called some newspaper being an unreliable source without sufficient weight for mention. As I now see that the cited source appears to be a letter to the editor, I agree that it is unreliable and will undo my reversion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"Santa Ana"

Does "Santa Ana" in the article refer to the neighborhood of Manila, or to something else? No link. - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

War crimes

This is a WP:BRD discussion.

I've reverted this bold edit after a look at the WP articles on War crime and Law of war and a look at cited sources numbered 30 through 34 in the article. The cited source cirrently numbered 35 is not viewable online. My objections to this insertion are (1) I saw no support for the use of this term, (2) war crime is a technical term which needs definition if used here, (3) The questions come to my mind of (a) whether atrocities committed, if they were crimes, were committed knowingly and intentionally as a matter of policy by the warring party or (b) were committed by individuals and, if so, (c) whether such acts were prosecuted as crimes under law. Some sources support (3c) re some acts committed by U.S. soldiers, and my understanding is that such cases were not cases of atrocity committed as a matter of policy by that warring party. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I already reverted the edit in question but I hadn't seen this discussion you started. I will add that Caffeinate Mac apparently already made a similar edit using an IP account 11 October. Their edit summary of 'Restored per sources' makes it quite obvious that both accounts are the same person. Karsdorp85 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Too many commanders and leaders

The infobox is quite ridiculous at the moment, there are about 20 US leaders and about 30 on the philippine side. Surely not all of these people are top-importance commanders. I already removed Douglas MacArthur, who was a 20yo NCO. Does anyone know a good way to get the number down to a reasonable level? Thanks MutantZebrea999 (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why he was even listed. He wasn't even in the military yet, he was at West Point and graduated a year after this war ended. (But he wasn't an "NCO" either, he became a commisioned officer.) - wolf 00:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Douglas MacArthur was somewhat involved in this conflict, in fact it was the first engagement in which he saw action. According to his own page he supervised operations by the Army Engineer Corps in the Visayas in 1903 and led (or at least was involved in) a counterinsurgency operation in Iloilo where he killed two guerrillas. And although he graduated a year after the main part of the war ended, the post-1902 conflicts are still listed in the infobox. Because of the fact that it was the first military conflict of MacArthur's career as well as the fact that he was the son of THE most important commander during this war I think he should remain. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:499D:CFCE:1F93:B05 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't make him one of the "Commanders and Leaders" of the war... just a very green, very junior officer involved in a single post-war incident. - wolf 03:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Easy start is to remove anyone not mentioned in the article. CMD (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I think we should start making wholesale removals of every name that doesn't have a reliable source that confirms them as a "Commander and Leader" of the war. - wolf 03:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I thought I had commented on this previously -- maybe that wa This also concerns the Spanish–American War the talk page of another article. Note the following snippet from the {{infobox military conflict}} docs
For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended.

I would bet that this concern also applies re other articles about the Philippines. I'll mention this at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I'd like to chime in on the discussion. On the part of the Filipino commanders, I'd vote to retain those that are most likely to be frequently mentioned in elementary and secondary textbooks. These would be the following leaders from the (principal) Philippine government (as well as my arguments in favor of retention):

  • Emilio Aguinaldo - first president of the republic and concurrently commander in chief
  • Apolinario Mabini - prime minister
  • Antonio Luna † - one of the important generals of the revolution
  • Artemio Ricarte - another main general, also the only general never to have taken an oath of allegiance to the US
  • Gregorio del Pilar † - noted for his last stand at Tirad
  • Miguel Malvar - Aguinaldo's successor as commander in chief

and all four listed at the bottom of the infobox:

  • Macario Sakay - another general of the revolution who established a breakaway Republic of the Tagalog following Aguinaldo's defeat and capture
  • Datu Ali - last Moro chieftain to resist the Americans
  • Jamalul Kiram II - negotiated a treaty with the Americans but later started another resistance
  • Datu Amil - leader of the Battle of Bud Bagsak, one of the major battles of the Revolution in Mindanao

These are just my suggestions. I'm open to the opinions of other Filipino Wikipedians on this. --- Tito Pao (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that this article should pretty much limit itself to its own topic -- the Phil-Am war during the period of that war, plus some info on pre-war background and post-war aftermath. Persons really notable in re that topic should be mentioned in the article, and such a mention should be a prerequisite for infobox mention as a leader. The Official end of the war section puts the ending date at either April 16 or July 4, 1902; the infobox mentions only the July 4 date. The Tagalog Republic article doesn't give a precise date for the one declared by Sakay, but says that it existed from sometime in 1902 until July 14, 1906. Was Sakay notable during the Phil-Am war as covered in this article. Should this article cover him as much as it currently does? I would have similar questions about the others, but don't have the time to research them just now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is confusing and biased pro USA

A table of contents is completely missing.

The Philippine–American War is a brutal colonial war where the USA suppresses an independence movement in one of their colonies taken from Spain, that should set the tenor of the article.

During the war the USA military committed atrocities. The article makes light of them. Were for example did the mentioning of the concentration camps disappear to?

It is mentioned as "Tactics became focused on the control of key areas with internment and segregation of the civilian population in "zones of protection" from the guerrilla population." The death toll of women and children in this camps is casualty mentioned as "Due to disruption of war and unsanitary conditions, many of the interned civilians died from dysentery." A white wash if there ever was a whitewash. The USA army herded this woman and children into concentration camps. The USA army was responsible for the unsanitary conditions and the USA army watched a quarter of the population of those concentration camps die, especially the high number of children. As nobody was prosecuted for this atrocity, one has to assume it was sanctioned by the USA government.

There are many strange concepts in this article, for example mentioning of massacres of USA troops. Since when is defeating a group of soldiers in a war a massacre? Is there perhaps evidence they tried to surrender or something similar?

War crimes. It is a neat distinction between war crimes perpetrated by individuals or ordered by the army. But is that a fair distinction? If war crimes by the individuals or some troops are not prosecuted they are sanctioned. I do not see that war crimes by USA troops were prosecuted by the USA. Jochum (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you're seeing or not seeing, but the table of contents is there. Perhaps check to see if you have it collapsed? As for the rest of your post, I didn't read all of it (tl;dr), but I can still suggest this: If you would like to see the article changed and/or improved, you can try to WP:FIXIT yourself, but if you're unable or unwilling, you can request edits here in the talk page, and hope that another editor will make the changes for you. You can use an Edit request template, just ensure that you list your requested changes in a "please change 'X' to 'Y'" format, and also make certain that you include sourcing for every change. Good luck - wolf 10:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
(oops, forgot to ping @you:. - wolf 10:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC))
OK, I found the table of contents.Jochum (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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

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

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)

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)

  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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philippine–American_War/Archive_5&oldid=1172106416"