Talk:Moro Rebellion

message: Bangsamoro appears to be a Neologism. I am not finding any books older than the last 35 years that use the term/name.
*1999: 
*1993: 
Even this self published book only dates to 1985:
*
This event ended in 1913. While it may have some context for background sections in other articles, or mentioned in an aftermath section in this article. Writing about the conflict itself or background to the conflict which is the subject of this article, should not use the term Bangsamoro IMHO. In a way it is attempting to reframe history and interject a non-neutral POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the uses in the article are in references.  It's appropriate there.  There are two uses in the article text.  The first specifically refers to "current" Moslem leaders and is appropriate.  I would change the second, though — the term seems to come from the more recent trend to use non-English terms in English (Mumbai for Bombay comes to mind), and it seems that Moros is more appropriate in that context.  I am more concerned with the use of "national liberation" in a conflict that is 400 years old.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The word is modern, used as a catch-all term to denote the former territories of the Sultanate of Sulu, the Sultanate of Maguindanao, and the several independent "sultanates" of the Maranao. In reality, the "rebellion" was not a single event, nor were the different Moro groups united. I do agree that the first use might be acceptable (since it specifies current Moro leaders), the second usage (Moro Rebellion#Philippine–American War events) is definitely not. There is no such region as "Bangsamoro" back then. You had territories of each different Sultanate, all independent from each other.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the point of view of modern Moros even emphasized in the background section? Shouldn't it be moved to the "Further Rebellions" section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism 

message: In addition, the word "sacopy" may occur as a single source 'hapax legomena' in the 1973 book by Donald Smythe "Guerrilla Warrior: The Early Life of John J. Pershing" I'm finding it hard to tease any other sources out of search engines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE80:2AA0:F521:2851:5576:37A9 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: (New comment)

message: :This article was listed at the Cat:Category:Articles with neologism issues as the term 'Bangsamoro' is used to describe the Moro territory at the time of the rebellion.  My edits to rectify this were reverted, with the explanation there are 4K current Ghit for "Bangsamoro" and Not a neologism, nor archaic, in current official use.
:Isn’t that the point of the objection above, that 'Bangsamoro' is a modern term that is inapplicable to the situation at the turn of the last century? There is no reply to the comments above: So, do any of the 4K current Ghits support the use of the term in the context of the 1899-1913 rebellion? And if so, wouldn’t it be a good idea to add them in support? Otherwise, it would be better, in the interests of NPOV, to use neutral phrasing like 'Moro nation', and 'Moro territory' (in fact, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea anyway...). Moonraker12 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I could look again, but it's my recollection that only a handful of the Ghits I looked out used the term in relation to the Moro rebellion, and that was in the context of historically connecting it to the more current Moro conflict.  If the objection was that the term is anachronistic to use for the Moro rebellion -- as opposed to being a "neologism" -- then I suppose that's a legitimate complaint.  Obviously if the commentary here supports the removal of "Bangsamoro" in this context, I'll go along with the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough: I’ve put a ‘dubious’ tag on the first instance (to link the discussion here), and a citation request on the second, per the discussion above. We can see how it goes... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism, again 

message: The quote says that pershing himself said "it was not pleasant to have to take such measures", who whence is there a doubt that he was directly involved? Since it happened systematically with his command and never denied but rather admitted it without regrets...
The "sources" for suppossed "historians" are anti-trump media hit pieces from 2018, not academic publications or reviews. I get wanting to attack  trump but this is a discussion about colonial history not 2018 electoral politics. 186.139.111.142 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "directly involved"!? 

message: Beyond My Ken's material is partly duplicate with the original material in the "Tactics" section. That's why his material is overly detailed about tactics and needs a rewrite.
*  can be fully summarized by original material 
**  is duplicate with 
**  is duplicate with 
**  is duplicate with 
*  is only a conspiracy theory mentioned by Donald Trump and provides no further information about tactics which has been used. It should be included in quotes instead of materials.
: The material of "Tactics" should be modified as follows:
	
NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested trimming 

message: @Drmies: I have formatted this discussion by subsections which could help you follow it. I notice you mentioned . I think the conspiracy theory about Pershing could be put into List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump as well. What do you think? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion 

message: That refers to Battle of Manila (1899). Of course Manila is not in Moroland. Based on this article, the "rebellion" began on March 9, 1902. I don't think the Moros were taking orders from Aguinaldo who was captured a year before, or even from Miguel Malvar, who surrendered a month later on April 16, 1902. First Philippine Republic forces in Mindanao surrendered on March 27, 1901, well before the Moros rebelled. I suppose this should be treated differently from the Philippine–American War which has a well defined start date of February 4, 1899, and ended at various times, all centered on events in involving non-Moros outside Mindanao. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start date of February 4, 1899