Talk:United States Senate Committee on the Philippines

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Tambayan Philippines C‑class Mid‑importance

	Philippines portal 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge Lodge Committee into this article

I've proposed merging Lodge Committee into this article, since the Lodge Committee was actually an investiation carried out by the Philippines Committee rather than a stand-alone committee, and a such should be included here. Please discussed at Talk:Lodge Committee#Merge proposal.DCmacnut <> 17:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge. Non-controversial, I think.—Markles 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the article over, but am not going to redirect Lodge Committee yet. I want to confer with one of the main editors of that article on the merge, User:Ikip. There's a lot of good information there, but it's formulated as mainly a chronological transcript of the committee hearings. It is in serious need of being wikified, and some of the items could just as well be deleted.DCmacnut <> 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Committee?

Near as I can tell, this article references a specific investigation carried out by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Philippines rather than a separate official Senate committee. Would it make more sense to rename the article to the "Lodge Investigation" or incorporate it into the main U.S. Senate Committee on the Philippines article with an appropriate subheading? This particular investigation is not a committee in its own right, and the Lodge Committee and the U.S. Senate Committee on the Philippines are technically one and the same. The information in this article likely warrants its own article, but calling an investigation a "committee" may not be the most appropriate designation. The Lodge Committee is not referred to in the Congressional Directory or other official sources of the time as a separate committee.

I'm only approaching this from the standpoint of improving and cleaning up the articles in the List of defunct United States Senate Committees. Thoughts?Dcmacnut 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I originally posted a comment about a possible merge back in 2007. No movement has been made, so I'm proposing a formal merge with United States Senate Committee on the Philippines. All reliable sources I can find point to the Lodge Committee being a short hand reference to an investigation carried out by the Philippines Committee. Lodge was chairman of the Committee on the Philippines during this time, so it was common to refer to it and the investigation by the chairman's name. See s:Lodge_Committee_testimony_from_the_New_York_Times at WikiSource. It appears a proposal was made to create a separate committee, but that proposal was not adopted. Instead the investigation was referred to the Philippines Committee rather than creating a new select committee. Later sources reference the hearings being held by the Committee on the Philippines.

This merger will accomplish two goals. First, it will clean up the article space. We should avoid naming committee articles after their chairman, such as this, and should focus on the formal committee name. Lodge Committee should continue to be a redirect, though. Second, it will improve the existing Committee on the Philippines, which is currently a stub lacking adequate souring. We tend to reference major committee investigations on the committee articles instead of as separate articles, unless the article becomes so large as to warrant a spin out. Please comment here. If I don't get any major comments or objections, I will proceed with the merger in a few days.DCmacnut <> 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of this article has been merged, but this article will remain so other editors can assist. If no one has any other suggestions or other thoughts on the merge, I will redirect this article in a few days.DCmacnut <> 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other, but if the Lodge Committee is more commonly known, I suggest that perhaps the merger should go the other way around. older ≠ wiser 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge committee only applied to the 10 years that Senator Lodge chaired the committee, and was infrequent shorthand. The Committee on the Philippines is how it was commonly known in reliable sources. Our general standard has been for congressional committees to use the committee name, rather than singling out any one chairman.DCmacnut <> 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Complete

I've retained the most recent version of this article at User:Dcmacnut/Lodge Committee so as to retain relevant sourcing and text to help improve the newly merged article.DCmacnut <> 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged Talk page comments from Merged Talk Page

POV

This strikes me as an awfully POV article. E.g.: "Anti-imperialists justifiably feared a whitewash." And the terms "imperialist" and "anti-imperialist" are themselves very loaded. Perhaps someone who was involved in creating or editing this article can explain to me why I am wrong. But otherwise I fear I may have to start editing this article fairly ruthlessly. Hydriotaphia 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-imperialists justifiably feared a whitewash

Thank you for this message instead of "ruthlessly" editing this article.

I am the only contributor to the article. I created it a few months ago. Much of the spirit of the sentences of the introduction come from the book "Benevolent Assimulation" and historical journals (see footnotes).

I welcome your edits, like in the sentence "Anti-imperialists justifiably feared a whitewash." If you are not familiar with this period, let me explain the historical context of this statment, and why Miller (Benevolent Assimulation) said something similar to this. The Republicans had been hiding information and status reports about the status of the war in the lead up to the 1900 election. The Republicans also had resisted forming a committee to investigate war crimes committed by American troops. Many American soldiers were writing home bragging about torturing and killing civilans and POWs. Otis, the first commander of the Philippines, even attempted to court martial those who would not whitewash the affair. When General Brigadere Jacob H. Smith bragged to a reporter about some of his attrocities committed in the Philippines, it was the crack that broke the damn. The Republican administration was forced to act. Instead of forming a new committee, the Republican administration combined the committee into the standing Philippine committee, run by Lodge, a rabid imperialist (we would call him a hawk today). History shows that Anti-imperialists were justified in large part by this concern. I don't think a single soldier spent a day in jail for the torture and murder of civilians and POWs. The Republican majority committee refused to allow many witnesses to testify, and one Repbulican selectively choose the conclusion to the 3000 page report, cherry-picking what testimony to include and what testimony to exclude.

So in that context, it is very understandable that Anti-imperialists would justifiably fear a whitewash. Travb 08:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for your thorough response to my concerns. I greatly appreciate it. In what follows I will voice my continuing concerns (mollified to some extent by your obvious familiarity with the period) with the article. First. You'll need to cite a source to show that "The Republicans had been hiding information and status reports about the status of the war in the lead up to the 1900 election," and that they had resisited forming an investigatory committee. Also, I am sure that, as in so many of America's overseas adventures, American soldiers committed atrocities in the Phillippins. But: here, at least, you are assuming your conclusion. To argue for the proposition that Republican fears were justified, you point to the fact that the committee found no atrocities; but before you can do that, you must argue that there were in fact atrocities, and that they were so clear cut and obvious that nobody in good faith could have ignored them. If you can cite sources to show this, I'll be very happy and very grateful to you. Hydriotaphia 09:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hydriotaphia I need to study for finals, I may be able to answer you in the next couple of days, but this may have to wait until after this Wednesday.

As mentioned below, which will answer your questions about documented attrocities, please see the wiki entries: Philippine-American War, Jacob H. Smith, Littleton Waller, and the wikiquote entry I created: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War.

I am thankful that you are interested in this period of history and I am flattered that you are asking me for more information, I enjoy talking about what I learned, I learn too.Travb 18:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hydriotaphia wrote: First. You'll need to cite a source to show that "The Republicans had been hiding information and status reports about the status of the war in the lead up to the 1900 election,"

Hydriotaphia here is the promised information, I added it to the U.S. presidential election, 1900 page.Travb 04:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"imperialist" and "anti-imperialist"

In regards to "imperialist" and "anti-imperialist", you are not the first person to raise this issue, as I have explained twice before in other wikipedia articles [1][2]: Anti-imperalist and imperialist is a historical term, which is used by many historians to describe this unique period, which I use, as many historians do, to differenentiate the hawks from the doves in the Spanish-American War. I have yet to come up with a better term to differentiate the two groups in this unique historical period. Maybe you have a better suggestion?

New specific examples of the use of "imperialists"/"imperialism" by historians:

Diamonds are forever: Kipling's imperialism; poems of Rudyard Kipling;

Cover Story History Today

June, 1997

No. 6, Vol. 47; Pg. 37

Judd, Denis

"Kipling, secure in his reputation as an imperialist and a patriot, had issued 'a call to humility and a warning that the proudest empire is ephemeral as a day's pageant."

I deleted the mention of anti-imperailist/imperialist from the Philippine-American War article to describe further reading because it was an akward term, which was not central to the article, and I wanted to avoid an edit war with a possible jinogist. The use of "imperialist" and "anti-imperialist" in this article is much more central, I wanted a reader, at a quick glance, to be able to see where each witness stood on the war. Travb 08:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imperialist and anti-imperialist may be historical terms. They also happen to be terms that unfortunately evoke quite visceral reactions from people. You may be right that they are the only useful terms here; but I'll have to give it some thought. Hydriotaphia 09:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would never use this term in any other conflict. Even by the American invasion of Haiti in 1915, a few years after the war, the term was already dated. To my knowledge, the term was only used during the Spanish American War. If you are interested, I can write more about this later. I learn a lot myself by doing this, especially when someone calls me on everyone of my stated facts.Travb 18:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

testimony of individual witnesses

Much of the testimony of individual witnesses of the article is from historical non-copyrighted (pre-1923) NYT articles, which were direct quotes from the committee itself, and as such, probably is the best source of information. Unfortunatly the article is not complete, and much of the witnesses testimony is not complete, such as Deweys.

If you have access to NYT articles, and would like to add this information, that would be great. I haven't added many of the testimonies of the imperialists. Right now I am focused on the http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCormack-Dickstein_Committee which investigated the Business Plot. Travb 08:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

more information

For more information on this period, please see the wiki entries: Philippine-American War, Jacob H. Smith, Littleton Waller, and the wikiquote entry I created: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War.

Hope this helps.Travb 08:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deletion by anon

anon (66.245.213.130) attempted to delete these paragraphs:

"pro-imperialist witnesses, who often made embarrassing remarks and self-damaging confessions. Taft was immediatly followed by three witnesses."

"Senator Dietrich immediately attemped to lessen the significance of this concession by asking" Hughes to estimate the value of these houses. Hughes said they only tooks a few days to build, and cost between $1.50 and $4.00.

I dont have time to explain the history to you anon until after Wednesday. I am interested anon, do you know anything about the Lodge committee, anything at all? Do you know why those sentences are in the article anon? Do you even know what they are refering too?

I will change back the second reversion of yours, but let the first revision stand. I still wonder how much you even know about this event. Travb 05:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Reading the lead section, I came up with a few ideas to improve it. I post them here to be debated.

The Lodge Committee (commenced on 31 January, 1902^[3] and adjourned on 28 June, 1902^[4]) was a United States Senate investigation into the alleged war crimes committed by the American armed forces during the Philippine-American War. A remark on 4 November, 1901 to a Manila News reporter by newly promoted brigadier general General Jacob H. Smith triggered the committee that led to Smith's own court martial and conviction. Smith, whom General Adna Chaffee assigned to lead the Samar campaign, ordered his officers to set the entire island of Samar ablaze and wipe out any prisoner over the age of ten.^[5]

The anti-Imperialist Republican Senator George Frisbie Hoar had been demanding an investigation in response to mounting suspicion of war crimes committed during the Philippine-American War.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} Hoar introduced the resolution for the committee on January 13, 1902.^[6] Teddy Roosevelt's apologists also responded after Smith's comments. The apologists insisted that the committee be part of the standing U.S. Senate Committee on the Philippines headed by imperialist Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.

It Lodge Committee was closed to the public except for three press associations.^[7] The final report came to three thousand pages.^[8]

I still think it stands for improving, but I am afraid I do not know enough history to accurately improve; I may have confused the facts as it stands. For example, I took a more direct approach to Smith's comments in the last sentence of the first paragraph from the article Jacob H. Smith, but the comments noted there were to his officers, not to a Manila News reporter as prompted the investigation according to this article. I am afraid that and other edits may be incorrect. Please comment.

--Iamunknown 19:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, you are welcome to change anything you want. I am one of the few people who watch this page, and I may be the only one, since this is a footnote in American history. Welcome to the page, and please make any changes you deem fit. For more background on the War, see Philippine-American War which I contirbuted heavily too. Travb (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

The numbers in the text go up to 75, but there are only 59 footnotes. What happened to the rest? One of the missing footnotes may hold the answer to the following apparent error:

'Wagner concede (sic) that in one camp "about two miles long and one mile wide" live 8,000 Filipinos. By simple calculation, the critics pointed out that there was only a twelve-by-six foot area for each inhabitant.'

My "simple calculations" show that a camp of two square miles (two miles long by one mile wide) with 8,000 residents gives almost 7,000 square feet per resident. That's a 120 by 60 foot area, not a twelve by six foot area. Either the size of the camp, the number of residents, or the area per resident must be wrong, or "the critics" dropped a couple of zeros in their calculations. PubliusFL 08:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the old system of footnotes, when you cite something more than once, it is added in the text as a number, but it is only listed once in the footnote section. So there are only 59 sources, but those sources are citied 75 times. The math I will look into later, I may have the numbers wrong. Travb (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's something wrong with my web browser or because of the code. Often when we click on the number, it'll lead to the footnote below, but as I click I see no result. Maybe we should change all the ref code? Apple •_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 07:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]