# Talk:Battle of Caloocan

Perhaps more information on the disenfranchisement of the Igorot people in the "results" section would be helpful in contextualizing the U.S. subsequent navigational help  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonsisunik (talk • contribs) 04:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC) 

This edit caught my eye, and I have reverted it. Wikisource:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Soldiers_Letters is cited in support. That source presents material taken from Anti-Imperialist League pamplet, 1899, "Soldiers' Letters: Being Materials for the History of a War of Criminal Aggression.", and notes: "As [that source] is often unable to verify their statements, or even to identify the writers, it disclaims responsibility for their truthfulness."Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I have concerns about these recent revisions by Dabberoni15. They strike me as an improvement in presentation, but with some muddling of details. We've discussed this briefly here on my talk page, and that produced some change, but I still have concerns. I'm airing this here not because I think we have a dispute to be decided but, possibly, to get wider input on changes I think are needed and presently intend to make if I'm not beaten to it or persuaded otherwise by discussion.

Elwell Otis commanded the 8th Corps, in which Arthur MacArthur Jr. commanded the 2nd Division. Harrison Otis (no relation to Elwell) commanded the 1st Brigade under MacArthur. There's too much potential for confusion there. Elwell should be added to the infobox and these relationships should be clarified.
The lead section says that the U.S. offensive was planned by MacArthur and Harrison Otis. I see no support regarding who did the planning. Unless clarified and supported in the article body, this assertion should be removed.
The Background section explains that this action followed on a 4 Feb attack on U.S. forces in Manila which resulted in Filipino forces being pushed northwards with U.S. forces in pursuit, and that Filipino forces regrouped in Caloocan, 12 miles north. It says that MacArthur wanted to attack immediately but was "persuaded by fellow officer Elwell Stephen Otis" to delay. The supporting source cited says that Otis (that would be Elwell, MacArthur's commander) approved the plan (begging the inference that it was MacArthur's plan), but urged a delay. The battle commenced on 10 Feb, so there was a delay of several days. This needs to be rewritten. I've looked for more detailed sources re the delay, but have not found any. I did stumble across this in looking for sources. That is not pertinent to this discussion, but I mention it here thinking that it might be useful in the Aftermath section.
Discussion? Suggestions? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've been somewhat busy over the past few weeks, so do forgive me if I have made some errors in my edits. That being said, I'll try and go over the points you have raised so far.
From what my sources say (and do correct me if I have misinterpreted them), while Elwell Otis did indeed command the 8th Corps, MacArthur Jr. commanded the 2nd Division of that corps- and as such was the highest ranking commander present at the battle. (Linn 2000) writes that it was Harrison Otis who commanded the attack on Caloocan, while MacArthur Jr. merely observed next to the artillery positions (as the lede image amply demonstrates). I understand there is confusion over which Otis the article is referring to (damn you fin-de-siecle American surnames!) so I'll try my best to sort that out. I also don't think that Elwell Otis should be in the infobox, as my sources do not reference him being present at the battle in any way. The infobox as it currently stands (MacArthur Jr., Harrison Otis and Funston) I think should be sufficient.
I've reworded it to just MacArthur Jr. Looking at my sources again, I think it's fairly clear that Elwell Otis did not plan the offensive with him, merely advise him to delay it.
Here is what (Linn 2000) has to say about this: "Otis approved the plan but urged MacArthur to delay a few days, not only to permit him to shift reinforcements from the south but also to allow the Filipinos enough time to concentrate their forces into the Caloocan pocket." Now I know there maybe a paucity of sources on this, but Linn 2000 is a reliable source IMHO and I think that the section is fine as it stands- though if you want to reword it I am more than happy to concur with any such changes. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Caloocan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - I don't want to step on your toes here, but I just gave the article a quick skim and the link for the 20th Kansas Regiment is almost certainly incorrect - the linked article was an emergency unit mobilized for a month in 1864 that would not have carried over to the 1890s. (It was also, at least in theory, a state unit, not a United States unit, although it did serve to some extent under a United States overall commander).  The 1st Nebraska link also looks wrong, as it's linked to a Civil War unit that wouldn't have carried over to the 1890s wars.  See, for instance, the distinguishment between 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (1898) and 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment. Hog Farm  Talk 15:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This issue has been corrected. Hog Farm  Talk 18:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Background:
"American commander Arthur MacArthur Jr. made plans to dispatch a detachment of U.S. troops to launch an attack on Caloocan immediately, but was persuaded by his superior Elwell Stephen Otis to delay such a move by a few days to allow both times for additional reinforcements to be shifted into position and for Filipino forces in the region to concentrate in the Caloocan region; Otis argued that capturing Caloocan would serve the dual purpose of occupying a key settlement and trapping the Philippine Revolutionary Army in Manila Bay." is one monstrously long sentence. Suggest breaking it up - perhaps "American commander Arthur MacArthur Jr. planned to dispatch a detachment of U.S. troops and launch an attack on Caloocan immediately. His superior Elwell Stephen Otis persuaded MacArthur to delay the move by a few days to both to allow for additional reinforcements to be shifted into position and for Filipino forces in the region to concentrate in the Caloocan region. Otis argued that capturing Caloocan would serve the dual purpose of occupying a key settlement and trapping the Philippine Revolutionary Army in Manila Bay."!
Broke it up into three sentences, what do you think of it now? Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Battle:
"along with protected cruiser" what's a protected cruiser? and shouldn't this be "along with the protected cruiser"?
"It's a big ship with sailors, but that's not important right now." Jokes aside, a protected cruiser is a specific type of late 19th-century warship. Do you really think that information ought to be on the page? p.s. I added the "the". Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"and started to rout" retreat do you mean? Or panic. The common mean of rout is a noun, but as a verb in terms of battle it needs an object, at least according to my dictionary.
Reworded to retreat, what do you think of it now? Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Aftermath:
"once again failed to hold field fortifications against troops attacking over open ground" needs a citation on it per the Wikipedia:Good article criteria
Done Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Likewise "several Filipinos in a trench near the dummy line"
Done Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Did the senate committee take any action against the accused officers? Issue any findings?
No, my source (Barnett 2010) states the senate committee took no action against the accused officers- I've amended the article to reflect this. Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I did a very small amount of copyediting - please double check I didn't muck things up.
No, your copyediting was good. Thanks. Dabberoni15 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, thanks for reviewing another one of my GA's. I'll start going over your points right about now. Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: - Hi Ealdgyth, I think I've addressed all your concerns. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
All those changes look great. Passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a WP:BRD discussion.
I question this reversion. Quoting from the docs for Template:infobox military conflict:

See also the articles targeted by the two alternatives for this parameter: Manila (province) and First Philippine Republic.
I propose that this be reverted back to link the former article, possibly clarified and section-linked  as something like "the former province of Manila".
Discussion? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no discussion, I made the change. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)