Jump to content

Talk:History of the Philippines (1898–1946)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

coat of arms

[edit]

Does anyone have a copy of the coat of arms from this period, the maiden in front of the volcano? It would be a nice illustration. Chris 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is _wildly_ inaccurate in virtually every sentence. It desperately needs complete revision! (A concerned historian who doesn't have time to create a Wikipedia logon identity to do it now.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.117.76 (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial name?

[edit]

What was the official name of the Philippines when it was a U.S. territory? The article on historic regions of the United States just lists it as a Commonwealth, but that came after its territorial status. Postdlf 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Islands. Documents of the time will refer to "Report of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands," etc. Gareon 02:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just "Philippine Islands," or "Philippine Islands Territory"? The reason I'm asking is that I want to create a category for those who were appointed as judges on its territorial courts, to go along with the other subcategories in Category:United States territorial judges (i.e., Category:Montana Territory judges). Simply naming it "Philippine Islands judges" would obviously be confusing. Postdlf 02:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, the name used was simply "Philippine islands" -- see this and this. -- Boracay Bill 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what should the category be named? Would "Philippine Islands territorial judges" be acceptably accurate and unambiguous? (note the lower case) Postdlf 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In court cases, it was the "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands".[1] If the idea is to distinguish the insular (territorial) government from other Philippine governments, this would be the way to do it. Since the country had only one government at the time, there was no possibility of confusion. So the need to use a long-form name arose only occasionally. The terms "Philippine Islands" and "Philippines" were interchangeable and the distinction does not relate to the country's legal status -- you can see both terms used in the 1909 Supreme Court case linked to above. Kauffner (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what weight that "Insular Government of ..." nomenclature has. In the court case you cite, it identifies the defendant. That nomenclature, I would guess, may have grown out of the nomenclature used by the private-party plaintiff to describe the party against whom he was lodging the action. That's just a guess on my part, though. The Philippine Organic Act (1902) uses the terminology "Government of the Philippine Islands", and speaks of an official titled "Chief of the Philippine Insular Bureau of Public Lands" and an organization named the "Division of Insular Affairs of the War Department". See [2]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courts have specific rules about cases are named. Think of all the insulting names plaintiffs would devise for defendants if they could! At the Philippine Supreme Court, the Carino case was Mateo Cariño vs The Insular Government.[3] "Of the Philippine Islands" was added to the name of the case when it was transferred to the mainland. See here and here for other cases that follow the same naming pattern. In other words, "Insular Government" was a standard legal name, presumably specified in the Philippine rules of civil procedure. Kauffner (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll buy that. You're apparently better informed about that than I. I don't have a problem with the nomenclature change beyond some concern about its clarity to the non-specialist reader of an online encyclopedia directed at the non-specialist public. Looking at the article history, it seems as if I didn't make a related article edit here. I have made some related edits to other articles -- you might want to look at those when they pop up on your watchlist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(added) Looking back a bit further in this talk page section, I see that you said, "... Since the country had only one government at the time, there was no possibility of confusion." You may or may not be aware that many Filipinos and (AFAICS) the RP government at least in a semi-official manner, express a belief that the insurgent government of the First Philippine Republic was legitimate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The exact phrase "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" seems to have been used only in the context of U.S. Supreme Court cases, so it might be argued that this is an obscure use. I would argue for inclusion because 1) "Insular Government" was a common contemporary description and this is the most formal variation, and 2) This appears to be the closest thing to a long-form name that the territorial government had. Kauffner (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google books searches for
  • "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" hits 961
  • "Insular Government of the Philippine Islands" -"supreme court" hits 761
  • "Government of the Philippine Islands" -"insular" hits about 27,700
  • "Government of the Philippines" -"insular" hits about 35,800
  • "philippine government" -"insular" hits about 91,500
Searching here in Dean C; Worcester's The Philippines Past And Present, Volume 1 (originally published in 1914), I get hits for "government of the philippines", for "philippine government", and for "insular government".
My impression is that "Insular Government" tended to be used officially or formally and "government of the Philippines" or "Philippine government" tended to be used informally. I don't think that it would be a good idea to ruthlessly exclude either the nomenclatures using or those not using "insular". WP:DUE suggests to me that "Government of the Philippines"

If you look at the hits for "Government of the Philippines", most do not refer to the Insular period. ("The government of the Philippines hosted the Manila Conference on September 8, 1954", etc). It seems that there is no way to specify a capital "G" in the search term. As for "Philippine government," that could obviously apply to the government of any period. "Philippine" and "insular government" gives you 49,400 hits. "Government of the Philippines Islands" was the most official variation, so it cannot be excluded. But its use creates certain practical issues. After all, you can't talk about the "government period." Kauffner (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about the Insular period -- I thought about that but didn't see any quick way around it. Google counts like those can be useful to get rough initial indications, I think, but they can't really be relied on too much -- I remember seeing a guideline about that somewhere. I tried to balance that a bit by looking in Worcester's 1914 book. Let's look at some other items which assuredly do relate to the insular Period:
  • The Philippines Bill of July 1, 1902 (the Tydings-McDuffie Act, (Approved: July 1, 1902) refers to "Government of the Philippine Islands", "Government of said Islands" and "Philippine Government" multiple times and to "Philippine Islands Government" once. It doesn't mention the word "Insular".
  • The Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law, (Approved: August 29, 1916) refers multiple times to "Government of the Philippines", "government of the Philippine Islands, "government of said islands", "Philippine Government" (those I've shown with a small 'g' are also used with a big 'G'). It mentions the word "insular" once, speaking of "... natives of the insular possessions of the United States, ...".
  • Kalaw, Maximo M. (1927), The development of Philippine politics, Oriental commercial, has 2 mentions of "Insular Government", 26 of "Philippine Government", 9 of "Government of the Philippine Islands", and 11 of "Government of the Philippines".
Also see the related discussion at Talk:Philippines#Philippine Islands vs Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you are attaching great significance to every mention of the word "government," but "United States Military Government" and "government of the Commonwealth of the Philippine Islands" are enshrined in law as well. The commonwealth act uses "Government of the Philippine Islands" to refer to the projected independent government, since it was without a proper name at that time.[4] So even though this act was drawn up at a time when the insular government was still operating, the legislators did not identify GPI as the proper name of an existing government. To establish that GPI is in fact a proper noun, we would need examples of post-1935 use where it is used to refer to the pre-1935 government exclusively. Kauffner (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm just trying to apply WP:DUE, which says, in part, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them 'due weight'." That is is part of the WP:NPOV core content policy. I'm not pushing a POV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(added) Hoping to avoid a digression on this point, I'll also mention that WP:DUE also says, "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most straightforward interpretation of "Philippine Government" is just whatever government happened to exist during the time period the writer is referring to. You can find similar references for any historical period. You haven't provided a rationale for thinking that this phrase is a proper noun. Kauffner (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess

[edit]

This article popped up on my watchlist when two {{POV}} templates were deleted without explanation. I took a look at the sections from which these templates were deleted, and then at the whole article.

This article is a real mess, and looks like an example of content forking. It contains numerous maintenance tags which have gone unanswered for several months and overlaps several other, better articles covering similar subject matter, contradicting those other articles on various points (Philippine Revolution, Spanish-American War, Philippine-American War First Philippine Republic, Philippine Commission / Schurman Commission / Taft Commission, Commonwealth of the Philippines, Second Philippine Republic, probably other articles as well. Some of those articles are better than others. IMO, all of them are better than this article.).

The existence of this article in its current state reflects badly on Wikipedia. Is anyone working on fixing the numerous problems in this article? It looks to me as if this would be better off recast as a summary style article giving a brief overview of material covered by articles such as those I've mentioned and providing {{Main}} links to them. Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a substantial rewrite

[edit]

I've started a substantial rewrite of sections of this article. I started at the top and am proceeding downward in chronological order, working from related WP articles and sources cited therein. The tone what I have written thus far differs markedly from the tone of other related articles, but I think I am being faithful to the sources from which I'm getting the information.

I expect that there may be disagreement about what I'm writing, and would like to invite and encourage interested editors to look at what I am doing and comment on it. What I have done so far is at User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. Please comment at User talk:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First-cut rewrite of early sections integrated

[edit]

I've integrated my first-cut rewrite of the early sections of this article by completely replacing the first two sections with my rewritten version covering the same time period. I am working solely from online sources, and I no doubt have not seen some of the sources on which the parts I've replaced were based. There is some major controversy here between the Aguinaldo source and the Worcester source. What other sources I've found tend to support Worcester, and he certainly supports his side of the points in controversy strongly -- he provides much discussion about this which I have not drawn into the article.

It made sense to me to reorganize the header-lovels of other sections, and I've done that. I've also converted the References section into separate Notes and References sections. I will probably take a break from this article for at least a few days unless something pops up on my watchlist which looks like it needs an answer. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing work, moving on to Phil-Am war period

[edit]

If anyone is interested, I'm continuing work on this article by moving on to the Philippine-American war period. To avoid confusing the main article with in-progress drafts, I'm doing this at User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. Please comment here and/or at User talk:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with major work

[edit]

I'm done with ongoing major rewrite work. There is still some work and a lot of polishing needed. Some of the detail in this article probably needs to be moved into more detailed subject-focused articles which it references with {{main}} or with inline wikilinks. I've probably requoted too much material from the sources I've cited. I think I'm done with heavy rewriting heavy rewriting, though. I think and hope that I've improved the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

[edit]

This article was tagged disputing its neutrality by User:Jeepday in this 08:51, October 5, 2007 revision. The article has gone through major changes since then, and I'm not sure what neutrality dispute issues might remain. If there are neutrality issues remaining, let's please discuss those issues here. If not, I'll remove the tagging disputing the neutrality of the article in a few days. Just for info, I expect to edit this article further as I have time to do so. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just moved it and the unreferenced tag to the top of the page they were both already on the article. I have no position on the articles neutrality. I would say the article look highly referenced now which it was not last time i was here. Considering the body of rework that has been done here, and there is not active dispute, I would say you are free to remove the {{neutrality}}. If someone believes there is still an issue they are welcome to discuss it here and replace the {{neutrality}} if there is an active dispute. Jeepday (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The labeling of Filipino troops as "insurgents" has an inherent pro-American stance, implying a legitimate American occupation and an illegal Filipino opposition. Can we just call Filipino troops as Filipino troops? In addition, most of the article is written from an American POV and is severely lacking in accounts from both Spanish and Filipino participants. Sistermoo (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "insurgents" is the proper term here. I do notice, however, that the term "insurgent" does not currently appear in the article below the History of the Philippines#First Philippine Commission section. An insurgency is "an armed rebellion against a constituted authority when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents". To get some context re the use of the word insurgent in the article, search the article for that word and read a bit of the content surrounding each appearance. There were a number of insurgencies against Spanish rule over the centuries, the last one beginning after Aguinaldo's return from Hong Kong in May of 1898, and an insurgency against U.S. rule developed following the Battle of Manila (1899) after sovereignty passed from Spain to the U.S. in December of that year — eventually escalating into the Philippine-American War.
Re your second point, see the list of sources in the References section of the article -- the article does draw from a fair number of Filipino sources but, as you say, it could probably use more Filipino-sourced content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth at this date, I agree with Wtmitchell, "insurgents" is OK to use. I do not think that it is a negative term, certainly not to this American. I have a positive view of insurgents (American Revolution, French resistance, Iraqi Kurds under Saddam, etc.) and view them as often fighting the legally recognized but illegitimate rulers. I don't think that there is any question that the Americans were considered under International law as the legal rulers of the Philippines (and that statement has more to say about international law then the Filipino troops). Finally, there were Filipino troops fighting for the Americans as well, especially as the war progressed and more and more Filipinos gave up the fight and sided at least technically with the Americans. --Bruce Hall (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos section

[edit]

I just placed this proposal in Talk:Armed Forces of the Philippines#World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos:

It seems to me that this section about World War II Veteran Benefits for Filipinos would fit much better into this article than it fits into History of the Philippines (1898–1946). I propose moving it. Comments? Objections? Suggestions?

Please comment here -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

add philippine american war

[edit]

Introduction needs to mention the Philippine-American war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.44.94 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys! Don't know where to put this, but I want to know if we were ever offered American statehood by the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.58.194.98 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World War II Veteran Benefits

[edit]

The subject section speaks of the effect of the Rescission Act of 1946. It makes the point that Filipinos who fought in defense of the United States against the Japanese (the vast majority fighting in the Philippines, which was a US territory at the time) were US nationals. However, the closing sentence reads, "Of the 66 countries allied with the United States during the war, only Filipinos were denied military benefits." This strikes me as a WP:POV cheap-shot against the U.S.

If there is an intended implication here that the US paid military benefits to allies other than the Philippines, it should be stated in a bit more detail and cite-supported. If there is no such intended implication, whatever this sentence does intend to imply should be stated more explicitly.

Incidentally, my own take on this without studying the history, is that the passage of the rescission act was probably related to the recognition of Philippine independence which took place in the same timeframe. At first blush, it seems to me that the rescission act was ill-conceived. However, I suspect that there is an unmentioned back-story here which, if there is, should be mentioned here and covered in some detail in the Rescission Act of 1946 article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict between two sources on a significant point

[edit]

In the Tensions escalate section, there is a source-supported assertion beginning "three days later", saying that three days after General Otis's January 4, 1899 publication of his abridged version of President McKinley's Proclamation of Benevolent Assimilation, Aguinaldo published a statement said to be "close to a formal declaration of war". I have the book cited as a supporting source (Wolff, Leon (2006). Little brown brother: how the United States purchased and pacified the Philippine Islands at the century's turn. History Book Club (published 2005). ISBN 9781582882093.), and it solidly supports that, including the title of Aguinaldo's statement, the characterization of it, and the quote from it used in the article.

However, I've just come across another source (this one previewable online), John V. Denson (1999). The costs of war: America's pyrrhic victories. Transaction Publishers. pp. 186–187. ISBN 978-0-7658-0487-7., which says that Aguinaldo's statement (also partially quoted there) was published "[a]s hostilities began". I take this as meaning February 4, or very shortly thereafter. That makes a lot more sense to me.

I should also mention that I have a copy of another source (José Roca de Togores y Saravia; Remigio Garcia; National Historical Institute (Philippines) (2003). Blockade and siege of Manila. National Historical Institute. pp. 151–153. ISBN 978-971-538-167-3.) which quotes in its entirety a very different response by Aguinaldo dated January 5, 1899 and issued (it explicitly says) "as a reaction to" Otis's January 4 proclamation.

This is the first time I have encountered such a situation, and I'm not sure how to deal with it. I'm inclined to move the mention of Aguinaldo's statement down into the Outbreak of general hostilities section, to associate it with those events and to cite the Denson source in support. I'm also inclined to add a footnote citing the Wolff source, containing information about the difference between the two sources regarding the timing of the statement. I'm also inclined to add info about Aguinaldo's 5 Jan response to Otis's 4 Jan proclamation, citing the source I mentioned supporting that.

Comments? Suggestions? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note to myself or to whomever else might follow this up with info that John Durand (2009). 1st North Dakota Volunteers in the Philippines. Puzzlebox Press. pp. 181. ISBN 978-0-9743783-3-6. (previewable online) quotes remarks attributed to Aguinaldo but different from the "My nation cannot remain indifferent ..." remarks quoted in the article and in sources mentioned above. That other quote begins "My government" (vs. "My nation"), and speaks specifically of American troops trying to take forcible possession of the Visayan islands. The mention of the Visayas probably relates to actions (described (here and in other sources, but not so much in this and other related WP articles) involving troops in Iloilo commanded by General Marcus Miller. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miller's presence and actions in Iloilo are described in Linn, Brian McAllister (2000). The U.S. Army and Counterinsurgency in the Philippine War, 1899–1902. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 37–41. ISBN 0-8078-4948-0. (not previewable online), which says that after Iloilo's business community petitioned Otis on 13 December for American occupation of the city to prevent it being burned by revolutionaries, on 24 Dec Otis ordered Miller to proceed to Ilolo and occupy the city, sure that the mission would be peaceful. Linn goes on with details of what apparently degenerated into confusion and stalemate, with Otis torn between instructions from McKinley to demonstrate US Sovereignty and also to avoid provoking war, leading to Miller and his troops departing Iloilo on 6 January to return to Manila -- arriving back on 2 February after 94 days at sea without having landed. The term "Fog of war" comes to mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the intro

[edit]

I rewrote the intro to make it shorter and cleaner without removing the neutrality. I hope that I succeeded. If I didn't please let me know, or revert my changes. i think that the opening only needs to be a quick sign-posting of the coming article and phrases like "acquired sovereignty" to maintain neutrality are unnecessary. --Bruce Hall (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes re interplay between Aguinaldo and Otis Benevolent Assimilation proclamation

[edit]

Here, I've removed some content (including the supporting cite of [5]) and replaced it with more extensive content citing another source containing the expanded content. The sources differ slightly on details (including differences in the exact wording of Aguinaldo proclamations quoted in the article). The differences between the sources are minor, however, and I don't see my not highlighting them here as flouting WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC+8)

Military forces stationed

[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=6OwbAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA400&lpg=PA400&dq=Yung+lo+governor+luzon&source=bl&ots=pn2TtAVUkL&sig=uMKrSu0xBuC8G2DqI3_rb2zIJ3o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cL53ULGEM8rD0AHZ6YHABA&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=Yung%20lo%20governor%20luzon&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=OicwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Yung+lo+governor+luzon&source=bl&ots=4PTShGmSEo&sig=zPgXPgANggXzgZ59OWHbiYkIWDY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cL53ULGEM8rD0AHZ6YHABA&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBzge#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fLstAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA1605&lpg=PA1605&dq=Yung+lo+governor+luzon&source=bl&ots=6_She5kX70&sig=h07ePLwPWUvrU967t7a_PBH4rYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TMF3UKjZD4qn0AGwjICQDQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBzha#v=onepage&q=Yung%20lo%20governor%20luzon&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fLstAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA1605&lpg=PA1605&dq=Yung+lo+governor+luzon&source=bl&ots=6_She5kX70&sig=h07ePLwPWUvrU967t7a_PBH4rYY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TMF3UKjZD4qn0AGwjICQDQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBzha#v=onepage&q=Yung%20lo%20governor%20luzon&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=WH8KAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=Yung+lo+governor+luzon&source=bl&ots=ZrDch8jkwm&sig=MXgKLMtOyjUbuCyT5zO9pd_8MmU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TMF3UKjZD4qn0AGwjICQDQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCDha#v=onepage&q=Yung%20lo%20governor%20luzon&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edits to two articles by user Shhhhwwww!!

[edit]

Here and here I've reverted recent WP:bold edits by user Shhhhwwww!!. This needs to be discussed before such major changes are made. I'll begin the discussion below. These reversions were done in the spirit of WP:BRD, and this is the D part of that.

These edits would have made a significant change in the organization of material presented in this article and in the (1521-1898) article which precedes it in the historical timeline. The change would be to begin this article not with the outbreak of the Spanish–American War in April 1898 but, instead, with the declaration of Philippine independence by Emil Aguinaldo's newly proclaimed insurgent dictatorial government (soon to be recast as a revolutionary government) on June 12 of that year. It seems to me that the events in the Philippines which grew out of the Spanish-American War, including Aguinaldo being returned to the Philippines from exile in Hong Kong by George Dewey and the re-ignition of the revolution against the Spanish colonial government which the pact of Biak-na-Bato had placed more or less on hold in 1897, fit better in this article than in the (1521-1898) article.

Some of the changes made by Shhhhwwww!! to the material as it was reorganized in the edits I've reverted need to be discussed too, but let's establish a consensus about the demarcation point between the two articles before getting into that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that May 1 1898 makes a much clearer cut between the Spanish and American colonial period. Because of the May 1 battle, the battle for Philippine independence shifted from a Spain-Filipino conflict to an America-Filipino one and the Philippine Revolution entered a second stage that we now call the Philippine-American War. I thank User:Shhhhwwww!! for the edits. It is not easy deciding how to divide epochs of history and this is something that we definitely need to reach a consensus on. This one I think should be divided by the arrival of Dewey in the Philippines -- much like the pre-Spanish and Spanish periods are divided by the arrival of Magellan. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Department of Mindanao and Sulu�� at the second Philippine Exposition : January 31 to February 14, 1914 (1914)

[edit]

https://archive.org/details/cu31924023112620— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milktaco (talk • contribs) 09:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment after seeing this section relocated: I take this as a suggestion that Moro Province deserves a mention and some WP:SS summarization here. In a quick look, I see no mention in that article or in this one of Mindanao, etc. under Spanish colonization, and little mention in the History of the Philippines (1565–1898) article Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the alleged offer of independence by the U.S.

[edit]

This has been discussed in various talk pages and touched on in some revisions of various articles as those articles developed. One place where it is currently mentioned is in the Philippine declaration of independence and establishment of Philippine governments section of the now-current version of this article (starting with "Writing retrospectively in 1899, Aguinaldo claimed ..."). I am revisiting this here after seeing this column headed What could have changed our history in the June 12 (Independence day) edition of the Philippine Star. That column puts a slant on this which I have not seen previously. In particular, that column says that Aguinaldo "invented the white 'lie' that the Americans had promised independence if they fought against Spain." The column cites a book titled Insurrectos in support, but I see here that Google Books subtitles that book A novel about the Philippines. I've downloaded the ebook, and see that the final sentence of the Preface reads, "Some events have been romanticized to add flavor to the story". See also Jose Alejandrino on Insurrectos on YouTube. I don't think that there's enough solidity here to support changes to this or other articles regarding this, but I thought that it merited talk page mention.

See also Berner, Brad K. (2014). The Spanish-American War: A Documentary History with Commentaries. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 142. Philippine Insurgent Representative Jose Alejandrino's Letter (May 19, 1908). ISBN 978-1-61147-575-3. (possibly relevant) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of the Philippines (1898–1946). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indent levels and Commonwealth era

[edit]

Here, I've just adjusted the indent level of the World War II veteran benefits section outward, as that subtopic does not belong in the Independence (1946) section. There is still a problem, though.

The article still places the Commonwealth era (1935–1946), the Japanese occupation and World War II (1941–45) and the Independence (1946) sections at the same indent level. logically, going by the headings, the last two should be subtopics of the first one. I would have adjusted those two indent levels inward, but I think that it would be better to change the section heading of the first one to something like Philippine Commonwealth (1941-1946), and to give a bit more coverage there of the government in exile. There is a bit of information about that in the Commonwealth of the Philippines article, but the Philippine Commonwealth government in exile probably should have a full section there and fuller coverage in a standalone article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and WP:BOLDly changed the section name Commonwealth era (1935–1946) to Philippine Commonwealth (1935–1946) (note the 1941 vs. 1935 correction from the heading I mistakenly suggested above). I haven't done anything re the coverage of the government in exile. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Consensus is to maintain consistency with other articles and to recognize that the time period was not just American rule. Discussions can continue about reorganizing all articles related to the history of the Philippines. (non-admin closure) TribunalMan (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


History of the Philippines (1898–1946) → Philippines under American rule – It sounds abnormal to read the article since the era from 1898 to 1946 was clearly defined as the era of American colonization, yet the page sounds too neutral for a country that once engaged in colonial expansionism. It needs to be known as the Philippines under American control, since the United States violently regenerated the independence of the Philippines and occupied it. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose All other articles in the history of the Phillipines series maintain the same name convention, of "History of the Phillipines (range of years)." Those articles, and this one, do have more general names in the series sidebar. This article is shown as "American period," as the period of Spanish control, which was similarly colonialist is shown as "Spanish period." This article clearly indicates that it covers the period of American control and colonialization in its lead. Starkenborgher (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you said "History of the Philippines" with that time period is fine? Oh well then, why don't we rename the article French Indochina, for example, as "History of Vietnam" with time period like your indication? So how about "Korea under Japanese rule" renamed as "History of Korea" with your indication? Literally we go with respect to the real history, not like the typical American "benevolent" teaching of history. This article's name is like justifying that America did nothing wrong to the archipalegoes. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say first I understand and agree that American imperialism in the Phillipines was completely wrong. I don't think the article title implies that, or necessarily deemphasizes it, or justifies the colonization. I think the article content makes it clear that America did bad things, but that the article title as it is now retains the most clarity in line with the other articles in the series. For example, History of Ireland uses a similar year range convention, but as you helpfully pointed out, other nations' articles, especially in southeast Asia, use a naming convention like that at History of Vietnam. I wouldn't oppose changes to the whole history of the Phillipines series, I just think there ought to be consistency. Thanks. Starkenborgher (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

1907 flag law

[edit]

I recently added a mention of the 1907 flag law (apparently we have the stubbiest stub at Flag Act (Philippines)) because it was presented in the source within the context of ongoing hostilities. It was introduced to clamp down on separatist sentiments, which is why I included it in the post-1902 hostilities section. The text of the law, which includes this context, can be seen on the officialgazette or wikisource. CMD (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed on user talk page. CMD (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Property rights

[edit]

Included in this additionby @JHBW was, "Under the Treaty of Paris, the United States agreed to respect existing property rights." I effectively reverted that part of the addition here, having failed in a quick attempt to confirm it. @Chipmunkdavis restored it here, calling my attention to Article VIII of the treaty. I'm not tagging or re-reverting this, but Article VIII is in fairly dense legalese and, though it seems to me as if this interpretation is reasonable, it also seems to me as if this is unsupported interpretation of a primary source made in Wikipedia's editorial voice (WP:OR). Excessive concern over minor details? OK, call me a pedant. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wtmitchell, that text was originally added by me, and was drawn from Elections and Democratization in the Philippines. It has a section "Preservation of the Existing System of Landownership", which opens "The basic elements of early US land policy in the Philippines...beginning with the 1989 Treaty of Paris. This treaty...committed the US to nonetheless respect the inherited [excerpt from Chapter VIII]. Without disturbing these prior holdings, the Americans introduced the Torrens titling system in 1902." CMD (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw the cite of the Franco book at the end of the para and wondered about that but couldn't verify it online. With this hint, I've found this. There's no pageno info there, though, and the book is cited elsewhere in the article in support of other points. If I had a copy of the book or could find info online to do it, I would try to convert those cites to page-numbered shortened footnotes linked to a full cite of the book, but if I had some ham I could make a ham and egg sandwich if I had an egg and if I had some bread. Oh well. Thanks again. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No page info for me either unfortunately, but I have access online to that section. Let me know if you want a longer quote, it also covers the 1904 church land issues already covered in this article. CMD (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overdetail on early years

[edit]

In the current article, the early sections of this article covering the Spanish–American War and the Philippine–American War contain 31kb of prose, not including the quoted text which presumably adds a significant amount more. It's an important period, but putting that much focus on 4 years within the 48-year scope of this article does not leave space for the rest of the time period. (31kb + quotes is more than enough for its own article.) Given this, the current text for these periods needs to be greatly compacted into WP:Summary style on this article. That said, it's detailed text that shouldn't be lost. I see a couple of options, one would be creating a brand new article on the period, perhaps also pushing it back to include the earlier Philippine Revolution. This would be a simple solution, but would overlap with existing articles significantly and thus would require work on those articles too. Another option would be to merge it to the existing articles, namely Philippine Revolution and Philippine–American War (the text here would not fit within the broader scope of Spanish–American War). These two articles are quite long already, however in both cases they are mostly history articles as it stands, so merging duplicated content might leave both articles not much longer than they are now. Personally I'd lean towards merging for the moment, unless that makes the two mentioned articles significantly longer. CMD (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that all of the major articles on Philippine history are overlong, there is way too much overlap between them, not enough attention paid to WP:SS, too many instances of content which should be in detail articles being missing from there but appearing in what should be summary articles instead, and some instances of conflict over detail between articles. All of that needs a hard look, and it's way too much for me to take on -- I'm glad to see you looking at it. As far as organization goes, the current division line at 1898 seems wrong to me, but that may be just because it falls in the middle of what has become an area of interest to me. I tend to think of 1892 to 1935 as a unit, running through the early part of the revolution against Spanish rule (Katipunan / revolution + Tejeros + Biak-na-Bato), the post BnB exile, the impact of the SpanAm war including the restarted revolution, the PhilAm war, the 1902 Organic act + Taft Commission, Jones Law in 1916 + Philippine Assembly, Tydings-Mcduffie in 1935 + Bicameral legislature. Maybe that unit ought to end at one of those earlier milestones or go on to include the Commonwealth and WW-II periods and run to independence in 1946, but that's not the way I think of it. Those educated in the Philippines probably think of it differently. I'm American, and the schooling I had in the US pretty much skipped over all of that; I learned what I know of it by reading about it while I was living in the Philippines. Don't take this a restructuring suggestion -- it's a drive-by comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source "U.S. WAR CRIMES IN THE PHILIPPINES"

[edit]

This edit caught my eye, and prompted this edit by me to tone down what looked like WP:POV WP:OR there. I remarked in the edit summary of my edit that this source, introduced into the article by that edit, appeared to be highly POV but based on fact. I see that it is located at a URL at worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/[...] (a dead link from a partial URL there, for illustration), and I'm having trouble relating it to the site indes at that website and considering it as a part of that website as a cited source. I think that the sourcing needs to be clarified in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transition from US military government to civil government

[edit]

This edit, inserting a {{cn}}, caught my eye. Here, I have replaced that tag with a clarifying footnote. The wording of the footnote could stand improvement but, hopefully, it is clear. This is a significant point, but it is a small detail in the context of this article topic. Detail articles expanding on this would include Philippine-American War, United States Military Government of the Philippine Islands and Taft Commission. I'll probably take a look at what is in those other articles re this detail. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question, "US occupation of Philippines"? The current article title with years "History of the Philippines (1898–1946)" is confusing.

[edit]

Was it not an occupation? 2601:58A:8881:E7A0:79BC:C560:36D4:EFF5 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

Information about american 112.198.113.52 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Philippines_(1898–1946)&oldid=1251097732"