Talk:Battle of Manila (1898)

message: The Battle of Manila took place on August 13, 1898. The First Philippine Republic was established on January 23, 1899 . Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Philippine Republic as a belligerent 

message: See http://www.archive.org/stream/philippinespastp01worcuoft/philippinespastp01worcuoft_djvu.txt
pp. 99-100
"There was certainly no need of Insurgent assistance in the assault on Manila. 
The reports which reached Aguinaldo that the surrender of Manila had been agreed upon in advance were correct, as is shown by the following testimony of Admiral Dewey [in a U.S. Senate hearing]: 
"Senator Patterson. When did you reach an understanding with the Spanish commander upon the subject,^ — how long before the 12th or 13th of August? 
"Admiral Dewey. Several days before. 
"Senator Patterson. To whom did you communicate the arrangement that you had ? 
"Admiral Dewey. General Merritt and, of course, all of my own captains — General Merritt, and I think a council of officers on board of one of the steamers. I think there were several army officers present when I told the General that ; and I may say here that I do not think General Merritt took much stock in it. 
"Senator Patterson. What statement did you make to 
them. Admiral, in substance? 
"Admiral Dewey. That the Spaniards were ready to surrender, but before doing so I must engage one of the outlying 
forts. I selected one at Malate, away from the city. They said I must engage that and fire for a while, and then I was to 
make a signal by the international code, 'Do you surrender?' Then they were to hoist a white flag at a certain bastion ; and 
I may say now that I was the first one to discover the white flag. We had 50 people looking for that white flag, but I 
happened to be the first one who saw it. I fired for a while, and then made the signal according to the programme. We 
could not see the white flag — it was rather a thick day — but finally I discovered it on the south bastion; I don't know 
how long it had been flying there when I first saw it."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.202.129 (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  requests for citations regarding the prearrangement of the surrender of Manila 

message: This edit caught my eye, and my attention was quickly drawn to  as the flag of the revolutionaries in this battle, and the wikilink Philippine Revolutionaries.
* This battle took place on August 13, 1898.
* The Philippine Revolutionary Army article says that that organization was founded on founded on March 22, 1897 [...] during the Tejeros Convention. I think that an argument can be made in support of the wikilink that the revolutionaries on August 18, 1898 were part of that same organization.
* Looking at Philippine Revolutionary Army#Flags and early banners of the revolution suggests that the proper flag on August 13, 1898 might have been the flag shown in either :file:Philippines Aguinaldo flag (obverse).svg or :file:Flag of the Tagalog people.svg.
* In the Flag of the Philippines article, the table section Philippine Revolution – First Philippine Republic suggests the same thing, and provides the information that the Philippines Aguinaldo flag was sewn by Doña Marcela Marino de Agoncillo, Lorenza Agoncillo, and Delfina Herbosa de Natividad in Hong Kong and first flown in battle on May 28, 1898. That flag, therefore, could not have been the flag of the revolutionaries in this battle. Neither could any other flag derived from that flag.
* That suggests that :file:Flag of the Tagalog people.svg might be the proper flag the flag to associate with the revolutionaries for this battle.
* It appears to me that the proper flag the flag to associate with the revolutionaries for this battle is the flag at :file:Flag of the Tagalog people.svg.
* The  template and associated templates use data from a template listed in :Category:Country data templates. One might think of using the data in , but that would be wrong. The Philippines was under Spanish sovereignty at the time of this battle, and the revolutionaries were insurgents against the Spanish colonial government.
* Looking at the internals of , it appears to me that the way to do that is 
* This produces: .
I have WP:BOLDly edited the article's infobox accordingly. 
Discussion? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of the revolutionaries, etc. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Manila (1898). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150914201259/http://malacanang.gov.ph/75830-the-evolution-of-manila/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/75830-the-evolution-of-manila/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've WP:BOLDly removed this image depicting Dewey's Asiatic Squadron in the Battle of Manila Bay which had taken place on May 1 from this article about the August 13 battle which was primarily a land action. Since the Background section does mention that May 1 battle, I initially re-edited the image caption for better clarity to read "US Navy Asiatic Squadron lead by the USS Olympia against the Spanish fleet" but, having done that, I still thought that the image was very out of place here, especially appearing where it did in the rendered article, and removed it instead. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold image removal 

message: In this edit, the term "fake" grated on me at first -- the article uses "mock" in several places and that's the term I recall being used in outside sources. However, according to the distionaries I checked there is a nuance there, with "fake" implying intent to deceive while "mock" does not. Considering that, "fake" seems to be a better term here. Perhaps there is a better term than "fake", but none comes immediately to my limited mind. In any case, terminology should be consistent and I've left this edit introducing inconsistent terminology unreverted. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fake" vs. "mock" 

message: This revert with an edit summary saying Not understanding removal reason caught my eye. The revert restored an observation re Filipino forces saying, "who have brown skin", that had been removed with an edit summary saying, Removed biased language, leaving a description of Spain earlier in that sentence as "a white country" intact. One of the two supporting sources cited is this journal article by historian Vicente L. Rafael. Some out-of-context snippets from that article illustrate my take on this:
I think that mention of skin color (particularly the mentioned shadings) here has due weight for inclusion. It does seem to cry out for a clarifying footnote citing sources with more detail about the social importance of skin color in stratified societies where the top strata tend to be predominately of one shading. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin color 

message: This is a BRD discussion in response to this edit by unregistered editor 154.205.22.6. I have undone that edit here. The effect of that edit, which I see as problematic, was to change the Result field in the infobox from "American victory" to "Filipino-American victory" with an edit summary saying (BE MORE SPECIFIC). The undone reversion had reverted a previous edit making the same change by the same editor, saying  (Not consistent with the 'Battle' section of the article.)
154.205.22.6, please WP:register. Please also read WP:BRD and WP:EW. Please also read the final two paragraphs in the Battle section of this article. Please pay particular attention to the sentence there saying, "Except for the unplanned casualties, the battle had gone according to plan; the Spanish had surrendered the city to the Americans, and it had not fallen to the Filipino revolutionaries." That assertion cites a supporting source that is readable online and is linked in the cite. If you disagree with this, please read WP:DUE.  DUE is part of WP:NPOV; please read that as well.
Please continue this discussion below if you disagree instead of edit-warring in the artice. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: I am very confused why Generals Mariano Noriel, Pio Del Pilar, Gregorio Del Pilar, Artemio Ricarte are removed from the commanders involved, according to Wtmitchell's summary of edit that Luna participated in 1899 battle of Manila, which is a fact, but what I was referring to is that the mentioned generals above participated in the 1898 Battle of Manila in this wikipedia article, and therefore their names must be included in the "commanders and leaders" section and were the same commanders (except Gregorio Del Pilar) who also fought or participated in the 1899 Battle of Manila, which can be seen in the main wikipedia page/article of Antonio Luna and the Battle of Manila (1899) RA9Markus (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an error on my part -- I've done no research to verify individual cases but I recall making the reverted edit also without doing that and don't recall what I had in mind that led me to do that. I think that I must have mis-read this somehow. Thanks for pointing this out. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders involved