Talk:Battle of Balangiga

message: Less than 200 casualties and this can be described as the worst US defeat in all history?  Seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Oldkinderhook 13:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst single defeat? 

message: Some of this article, most especially the portion under the heading "The 'Massacre'", smacks of POV to me - I'd clean it up myself, but I know nothing about the topic. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: At the bottom of this page it list the category "Massacres committed by the U.S." cleary someone has this mixed up because this was a massacre of U.S. troops, not Filipinos, why would the U.S. army massacre themselves? I am removing the category at the bottom that says this was a crime committed by the U.S. military, when really it was the other way around. Read the article and notice the casualties. --Aj4444 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops... my bad. Sorry for the inadvertent revert. (The finger was quicker than the eye). Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 12:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Massacre committed by U.S.

message: The Sarah Palin section says, in part:
The linking between the question whether Trig is her son to Barack Obama's birth certificate issues has been heavily criticized. Andrew Sullivan, in specific, wrote "Palin has never produced Trig's birth certificate or a single piece of objective medical evidence that proves he is indeed her biological son".
I've converted the refs into inline links there. That presents the Sullivan comment as an example of criticism of the linking. Reading that comment in context, I don't see it as a criticism of the linking. Sullivan characterizes Palin as having "joined or at least mainstreamed the Birther movement", but if he speaks to the linkage between the questions about Obama's and Trig's birth certificates, I missed it. He leads with comments about Palin's birther-ness, but most of the linked article is about Trig's birth circumstances. As I read it, Sullivan's key point relevant to this article in that source is, "The news here is that, to her credit, Palin says that all inquiries into a candidate's veracity, record, associations, and medical history are legitimate forms of inquiry." As I read that, he's saying that questions about Obama's birth certificate go to his natural-born-ness , imply that he may be a liar/perjurer, and are legitimate; questions about Trig's birth certificate imply that Palin may be a liar, and are legitimate. I suggest removing the final sentence and the link to the Sullivan comment, or rewriting the assertions in this section to highlight Sullivan's birther characterizations of Palin and/or the legitimacy of questions about a candidate's veracity, record, associations, and medical history.Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: uhhh... Bill, does this belong here? — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 02:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking of two birth certificates 

message: Most of the data related to the BRG mentioned above can be found in
:*
It deals with a number of myths, including the involvement of Vicente Lukban - who had nothing to do with it. Most accounts depend heavily on Schott's very flawed Ordeal of Samar. Others could not even get the day right "the Massacre of the Americans that Sunday morning" It was a Saturday. Much of what happened after Balangiga had already been going on before it happened.
bobcouttie  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.9.234 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Data 

message: Deleted: American historians continue to deny that the deaths could have been as numerous at 50,000.Bulletin of the American Historical Collection, April-June 2004, Volume XXXII,  page 65
It is self-evidentially untrue since the original figure came from an American historian. The reference is to an article which is not by a a historian. The statement is therefore unsupported in any way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revison 11 December 2011  

message: I've reverted these recent changes to the article. Aside from breaking a wikilink, the changes confuse the incident which is the topic of this article with the retaliation ordered by General Smith and carried out by Captain Waller and others. The retaliation is covered in some detail in the March across Samar article. Also, I'll point out that the source cited in the reverted edits is an interview with Bob Couttie in which Couttie says that the figure of 50,000 sometimes seen is "pure bunk". When asked if he thinks the figure is closer to 5,000, he responds, "We can only talk in terms of magnitude. You would certainly have to knock a zero off and I would think its probably at most two and a half to three thousand people. Its an area that really needs better research. ...". He goes on with more discussion. That source does not support an assertion by Wikipedia saying, "American troops killed 2000–3000 Filipinos on Samar". Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert of recent edits by 101.115.32.101 

message: This discussion page shows a strong slant towards the American point of view. It's a little scary. The article itself seems better, for now at least.
If it had been an American town occupied by foreign invaders, and the inhabitants of that town had managed to smuggle weapons in, catch the garrison by surprise, and decimate them, it would now be hailed in American history as an example of heroic resistance to foreign occupation. The hypocrisy is astounding.
It is not a "massacre", just because the townspeople didn't give the American troops ample warning and time to arm themselves before the fight. Nowhere in the conventions of war does such a rule exist, and to follow that kind of rule in wartime is absurd.
And where exactly did the figures for 2000-3000 Filipinos killed during the retaliation come from? In the absence of sources, 50000 seems just as likely as 2000. This disparity is similar to estimates of casualties during the Nanjing Massacre, from 20000 (Japanese estimate) to 300000 (Chinese estimate). It doesn't matter. It was a massacre in either case.
By the way, just because those 2000-3000 killed were males of fighting age does not mean that they were actually combatants. It doesn't make it any better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.88.213 (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong pro-American bias 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Balangiga massacre. 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/20081120041915/http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/31/counterinsurgency-and-the-us-military/ to http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/31/counterinsurgency-and-the-us-military/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050503232955/http://www.mb.com.ph:80/issues/2004/09/27/MTNN2004092719295.html to http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/09/27/MTNN2004092719295.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Balangiga massacre. 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/20080905232526/http://bakbakan.com/samarall.htm to http://www.bakbakan.com/samarall.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402103747/http://www.bibingka.com/phg/balangiga/default.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/phg/balangiga/default.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/09/27/MTNN2004092719295.html
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) 02:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Given that this was an uprising by civilians against an occupying invasion force, is it accurate to call it an attack/massacre?  In general the term "massacre" refers to unjustified killings rather than resistance to military aggression. 2601:644:1:B7CB:C957:9614:383C:F005 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Here, I've WP:BOLDly removed mention of the Philippine National Police introduced here in what looks like part of a POV recasting of this article. As far as I knpw, no organization by that name existed at the time of this incident.
I also added a  tag to the cite at the end of that paragraph. A Google Books search here failed to find any mention of Balangiga, but it may be in there somewhere. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Philippine National Police introduced during apparent POV rewrite 

message: I have today raised concern at  regarding content in the Retaliation section of this article. Please discuss there. Thanks. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apportionment of content between articles 

message: I see that there is a section on this talk page headed  which appeared on May 27, 2020, suggesting that move as if this article was named Balangiga Massacre at that time. The proposal drew two responses (one from me), both opposing such a move and both dated in September 2020. However, according to the links in the page history of this article, it was created on April 17, 2004 with the title, Battle of Balangiga and still bore that name on 31, 2020 (the last edit before that talk page section appeared). I also see from its history that Balangiga Massacre is a redirect to this article that was created on September 23, 2005. In any case I'm thinking of proposing that the title of this article be moved to Balingiga Massacre per the WP:TITLE policy. Comments? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this article 

message: :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: moved. (non-admin closure) WPscatter t/c 20:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Balangiga →  – See section above on this article talk page. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Ngrams are case-sensitive, so I re-ran the the Google ngram viewer here with both upper and lower case 'M's in massacre. My intent, unless consensus develops otherwise and considering WP:LOWERCASE, is to rename the article with a lower-case 'm'. Barring objection here, I'll probably do that early next week.  19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 June 2023 

message: This article was titled Balangiga Massacre {uppercase 'M') from 01:07, April 17, 2004‎ , when it was created by an anon, until 19:23, June 1, 2020 when the title was moved to Battle of Balangiga by User:Juanmakabulos with an edit summary saying: 
I'll note here that the definition given above agrees with Google , but that more comprehensive definitions are offered elsewhere (e.g., ). Also, this proposed move has been discussed above with no objections having been raised. I proposed this move to the sentence case title primarily with WP:LOWERCASE in mind. I will leave a redirect behind here. I will adjust the Balangiga Massacre (uppercase 'M') redirect to link to that new title. After the move, I will edit the article to adjust its lead sentence and to focus it less on the March across Samar and more on the subject incident. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wtmitchell: It seems that Balangiga massacre now has several duplicate sections.  Could you please remove the outdated sections?  Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for rubbing my nose in my error here -- I do appreciate that. I've done that here and made a few other post-move cleanup changes. More cleanup is probably needed, but I'm scheduled for surgery (broken arm) tomorrow and don't know when I'll be able to get back to this. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Doing the move