Talk:Philippine–American War/Archive 2

message: this paragraph was deleted:
While some measures to allow partial self-government were implemented earlier, the guerrilla war did not subside until 1913 when US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a change in policy that would, after a transitional period, grant the Philippines full independence. In the south, Muslim Filipinos resisted until 1913— the so-called Moro rebellion. During this conflict, the Americans realized a need to be able to stop a charging tribesman with a single shot. To fill this need, the Colt M1911 Handgun was developed for its larger .45 caliber ammunition (45 ACP), resulting in additional stopping power.
I don't think I wrote any of this, and have no attachment to this paragraph.  I added it back to the article.  I think if no one else objects, it can be deleted again.Travb 14:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the Moro rebellion was totally separate from the Aguinaldo rebellion and the aricle should say so. The Wilson program is not relevant to the Moros and does not belong with them. So I revised it, noting the Moro rebellion is still going on in 2006. Rjensen 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kewl, thanks for clarification Rjensen. Travb 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: "In the last two months of 1899, U.S. casualties in 229 engagements totaled 69 killed and 302 wounded. From January to April 1900, there were 442 encounters, and 130 U.S. soldiers were killed, with 325 wounded. Filipino losses were estimated at 3,227 killed, 694 wounded, and 2,864 captured. From May 1900 to July 1, 1901, American forces suffered 245 killed, 490 wounded, and 138 captured or missing in 1,026 encounters with Filipino forces. American losses after July 1901 were small. Much higher were the number of deaths due to disease."
That just seems a little scetchy to me, for both sides. Which leaves 582 American dead, assuming that the 138 captured were counted as fatalities. I find this a little low. This also leaves the death to disease at a remarkably high 3,652. The Filipino casualty figures you listed are even more contrasting. Only 3,227 killed and 700 wounded? Some scources state higher casualty figures in the first battle of the war.
Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
Philippines Insurgency (1899-1902): 220 000 
Eckhardt: 8,000 civ. + 4,000 mil. = 12,000 
Small & Singer: 4,500 USAns 
Irving Werstein, 1898: The Spanish American War 
US, battle: 5,000 
Filipino, battle: 20,000 
Filipino civilians: 250,000
Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace (also FAS 2000) 
Combat 
US: 4,234 
Filipino: 16,000
Filipino civilians: 200,000 of disease/famine
Clodfelter 
US: 4,234 d, incl. 1,073 in combat 
Filipino battle: 16,000 
Filipino civilians: 200,000
Leon Wolff Little Brown Brother (1961) 
US, battle: 4,234 
Filipino, battle: 16,000 ("actually counted") to >20,000 ("true total") 
according to Mark Clodfelter the Americans suffered 1,073 deaths in combat. Which meens the Americans would have to of suffered around 600 more combat deaths after 1901, a "small" number according you.
These casualty figures seem a little suspect to me.
**The casualty figures given are from the official US Army reports. The higher number (1000) includes fighting against the Spanish in 1898.  Disease was the major factor causing American deaths, all reportsagree.  The 200,000 number for Filipino civilians: there was another massive cholera epidemic in the islands that indeed killed many tens of thousands (including many American soldiers; soldiers also got yellow fever, typhoid and malaria).  Such epidemics happened often in the tropics. Antiwar critics count the deaths as war deaths and blame the Americans. For more details see .  also see "Immunities of Empire: Race, Disease, and the New Tropical Medicine, 1900-1920" in Bulletin of the History of Medicine 70.1 (1996) 94-118 of special value: "The Philippines insurrection and the 1902-4 cholera epidemic: Part I-Epidemiological diffusion processes in war" by Matthew Smallman-Raynor, Andrew D Cliff  Journal of Historical Geography, v 24, n 1, January, 1998, p69-89 (ID
hg970077)ABSTRACT This, the first of a two-part paper, presents an historical case study of the impact of war and its aftermath upon the spread of an infectious disease, cholera. The choice of area (Philippine Islands), the time (a year-long period in the immediate aftermath of the Insurrection against US annexation, March 1902-February 1903) and the epidemic (cholera) are conditioned by the detailed reports prepared by the Chief Quarantine Officer for the Philippine Islands, and published weekly in the contemporary US Public Health Reports. The reports
include textual accounts of the progress of the epidemic, and
numerical evidence regarding the weekly incidence of cholera in over 440 settlements. This information is used to reconstruct the routes by which cholera diffused through the archipelago and to model the diffusion process on the geographical levels of province, island and nation. It is shown that a spatially contagious component dominated the spread of cholera in many geographical areas and at all spatial levels. In contrast, hierarchical diffusion was generally found to be of only limited significance in the transmission process. These
results correlate with the lack of a well-developed urban hierarchy in many parts of the Philippines. Part II of the paper, to be published in Vol. 24, Number 2 (April 1998) of the Journal, goes on to compare the spatial diffusion patterns described here with those found in a subsequent peacetime cholera wave in the Philippines (May 1903-February 1904). Results from both parts of the paper are used to assess the manner in which war can affect diffusion processes and the
circumstances under which spread is likely to be dominated by
contagious, hierarchical or mixed diffusion processes.
Rjensen 06:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figuers 

message: "The casualty figures given are from the official US Army reports. The higher number (1000) includes fighting against the Spanish in 1898. Disease was the major factor causing American deaths, all reportsagree. The 200,000 number for Filipino civilians: there was another massive cholera epidemic in the islands that indeed killed many tens of thousands (including many American soldiers; soldiers also got yellow fever, typhoid and malaria). Such epidemics happened often in the tropics. Antiwar critics count the deaths as war deaths and blame the Americans. For more details see [3]. also see "Immunities of Empire: Race, Disease, and the New Tropical Medicine, 1900-1920" in Bulletin of the History of Medicine 70.1 (1996) 94-118 of special value: "The Philippines insurrection and the 1902-4 cholera epidemic: Part I-Epidemiological diffusion processes in war" by Matthew Smallman-Raynor, Andrew D Cliff Journal of Historical Geography, v 24, n 1, January, 1998, p69-89 (ID" 
This is incorrect. When the war broke out, the U.S. forces who were present to fight were basically the same forces which had fought in the Spanish American War. It was not understood at the time that the skirmishes were a prelude to a new, longer, bloody struggle. When the Spanish American War veterans who were now fighting against the Filipinos were wounded or killed, pensions were issued from the Spanish American War pension fund. It made sense. They were Spanish American War veterans afterall. 
more troops arrived to fight in the action – tens of thousands more. These were men who joined after the Treaty of Paris was signed, and had no plans to fight Spain. Still, when they were wounded or killed, the government continued its procedure of issuing pensions from the Spanish American War pension fund. A new Philippine American War pension fund was never created. This was true for men who were involved in fighting as late as 1906, eight years after the Spanish American War ended! 
to collect a pension, the paperwork must be filed correctly. The pensions were paid out of the Spanish American War Pension Fund, so the pension records had to read “Spanish American War.” In fact, all related government documents – including gravestones – followed suit. As a result, all of these government records list all Philippine American War veterans as “Spanish American War Veterans.” This has come down to us today and it is still creating havoc among genealogists who do not realize the difference.
You and your scources are stongly contradicting what is popularly excepted. That being Filipino losses amounting to 16 thousand killed, with American's suffering 1,500-2000 killed in battle with 2,500-3000 dying of disease, and another 3000 wounded. 
"In the last two months of 1899, U.S. casualties in 229 engagements totaled 69 killed and 302 wounded. From January to April 1900, there were 442 encounters, and 130 U.S. soldiers were killed, with 325 wounded. Filipino losses were estimated at 3,227 killed, 694 wounded, and 2,864 captured. From May 1900 to July 1, 1901, American forces suffered 245 killed, 490 wounded, and 138 captured or missing in 1,026 encounters with Filipino forces. American losses after July 1901 were small. Much higher were the number of deaths due to disease."
Despite what your scources say, I stronly believe this is incorrect. In the FIRST encounter betweeen American and Filipino soldiers the American's suffered 60 killed and 225 wounded. you also state that Filipino losses are at 3,000 killed in the middle of the war, when that very well was their losses on the FIRST day of battle! Not to mention at least 1 thousand wounded which dwarfs your 694 wounded. Your telling me that in 228 more engagments the American's lost only 9 killed and 70 wounded? And the Filipinos 227 more killed? With what I've read, and considering how bloody the war actually was, that just dont add up.
Even more baffling is the May 1900-July 1901. In THREE encounters of the guerilla phase the American Military suffered somthing like 200 killed wounded and captured. Those being Pulang Lupa(100 losses), Balangiga(70-78), and Catubig(25 losses). Not even counting the battles mentioned above, in the first 4 monthes of the guerilla phase the American's lost 450 killed and woundedin 442 encounters. In 1 3rd of encounters you've mentioned, the Americans have allready suffered 650-700 losses.
In order for this to add up like your scources state, the Americans would have to suffer 223 more losses in a staggering 576 more encounters! Which is hard to swallow when the American's averaged a loss of 1 killed to 2 wounded for every guerilla skirmish in this war.
Dupuy, Colonel R. Ernest and Baumer, Major General William H., The Little Wars of the United States, Hawthorne Books, New York, 1968.
Scruby, Jack, "Asiatic Colonial Wargames", The Miniature Parade, Volume 11, Number II, October 1968, pp 3-6.
Wolf, Leon, Little Brown Brother, Doubleday, Garden City, 1968.
::When we start adding up casualties we have to start with the official US Army reports. Granted that these are just estimates of Filipino losses, they are very exact monthly counts of American casualties. There are no other numbers to work with. Nobody else made independent casualty counts of US losses. It is unwise to say that there was a master ratio that stayed constant during the war. Rjensen 19:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty Figures-You're mistaken 

message: My main point was that many Filipino American War dead are listed as Spanish American War dead. Your scources seem to reflect this. Every other scource states American dead at 1000-1500 or as high as 2000. In fact the American War Library states the total number dead at 4,273, not merely 444 dead as you state. Allthough there was a larger number died of disease than actual combat, it was much larger than 444 killed(minus the missing and caputred). That leaves nearly 4,000 dead to disease and that is far to high. Your information is incorrect, and your trying to fight on with questionable information that is simply outweighed and outnumbered by the scources.
::sources--yes that is the issue. does anyone know where the number 4,324 American dead comes from? Rjensen 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding references: I deleted a series of contradictory 3rd rate sources that are not based on research. We have much better references already cited in article re casualties. The deleted refs add no information but will confuse reader. Rjensen 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrés Bonifacio was the main rival and Aguilaldo had him executed. Well known fact. Has to be included. Aguinaldo was the leader AFTER he overcame the previous leader Andrés Bonifacio, who with Rizal had created the insurgency and was its main leader until Aguinaldo took over in March 1897. [see Brands pp 41-44].  Rjensen 07:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your ignoring the main point here 

message: Your first paragraph:
"On January 1, 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo was declared the first President after he killed his opponent"
This is incorrect. First off, Aguinaldo was proclaimed President 2 YEARS after the execution of Bonifacio. You make it sound as if Aguinaldo was a cold blooded politician who eliminated Bonifacio due to the fact that he was heavy competition. This is terribly WRONG and misleading. and here's why your wrong:
True Bonifacio was the brainchild of the Katipunan and leader of the resistance against the Spanish. However he was not as gifted of a military leader as Aguinaldo was. As Bonifacio suffered defeats, Aguinaldo became more and more victorious, totally liberating Cavite; drawing the attention of the public as Bonifacio faded into the background.
There was then dispute and infighting between Aguinaldo's faction and Bonifacio. The two sides then agree to have an ELECTION in Tejeros, which Aguinaldo WINS by a landslide.
Bonifacio does not accept the new government under Aguinaldo and installs a rival-government.
As countermeasure the government under Aguinaldo orders the arrest at Bonifacio in Limbon. His house gets surrounded. In the following combat his brother is killed and Bonifacio is shot into the arm. Strongly weakened and half starved he is brought on a stretcher to Naik. Here he is taken to a court. Bonifacio is accused of the betrayal of the revolution and of trying to poison Aguinaldo. Bonifacio has hardly rights of self-defence and is condemned to death like his brother Procopio.
President Aguinaldo first hesitates to give the order of execution. He prefers a banishment of Bonifacio. However, his generals press him, not to show no pity and to go on with the execution in order to maintain the peace and the order within the new revolutionary government.
And remember, this is all happening two years BEFORE 1899, you were making it sound like this was all around the same time. Nope, this is in 1897 before even the Spanish American war.
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs) 
::good points. I have added a background section explaining how Aguinaldo got there. Rjensen 18:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: your edits

message: I am concerned with the large amounts of deletions on this page. At least four referenced paragraphs have been deleted.  How can we solve this repeating problem?
Signed:Travb 18:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the deletion have remained.  Nice reference system, superior and much easier than the old one I was using.Travb 07:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions, again

message: Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#_note-0 explains that although the number of dead is an estimate, it is a reliable and accure to say: est. 250,000 to 1,000,000 civilians died of war, famine, or disease.  I researched all of this material exhastively before when an apologist questioned the number of war dead. Boot, Max (April 1, 2002). The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, is the first quote.  He is definatly not an "anti-war" author.  He spends 3-4 pages justifying and apologising for the Philippine American war.  His books always glorify and justify all of America's wars.Travb 07:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Filipino Deaths

message: I have changed the end date of the war back to 1913, from which it was recently changed.  I expect the US Army knew the time period of the war and passed out medals accordingly.  See Philippine Campaign Medal
Thanks Hmains 03:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official date was July 4, 1902, announced by Roosevelt. Although not an exact historical analogym, from what I understand, Roosevelt's announcment was similar to the Iraq war and the now infamous "mission accomplished" banner.  Maybe you can comprimise and state the official date and the unofficial date.Travb 04:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the enddate is not important.  maybe both dates should be included. Travb 01:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the end date is important: it controls what is or is not included in the article and its category.  I agree both dates should be included to cover both bases and to allow us to include the continued fighting that went on.  I am not sure that Roosevelt's announcement of the end makes something 'official'; I would be more inclined to think the U.S. military's end date for awarding medals for fighting in the more is more 'official'. 
Thanks Hmains 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  end date of war 

message: The photo I attempted to delete was also being used on Spanish-American War but there the caption said they were Cuban dead.  We need to straigten that out before we display the picture with the wrong info.Kevlar67 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Many of the detail articles in the Philippine-American War category (including battles and people) lack any historical source references.  This entire set of articles would be greatly improved by having valid references.   Thanks Hmains 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lacking references

message: Many of the articles in the Philippine-American War link to non-extant bio articles, especially bio articles for for Filipinos involved in the war.  Writing Filipino bio articles (with references) would greatly help.  Thanks Hmains 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hmains, can you give me an example?Travb 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course.  Here is what I found:
General Mariano Trias
Manuel Arellano Remondo 
Thomas W. Connell
J.W. Duncan	
Datu Uti
Pedro de la Cruz
Stephen Hayt
Aploninar Velez
Maximo Abad
Devereux Shields
Pio Del Pilar
Francisco Carreon
You can check on backlinks from these non-articles to find what articles I found these in.  There are also a number of Battle articles in which the Philippine and, even the American, battle commanders are listed as unknown.
Thanks Hmains 01:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hmains, I may work on these in the next few weeks.Travb 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lacking bio articles

message: Perhaps the location of the background article should be moved to before the Origins of War to make it chronologically accurate.  Also, The last sentence where Aguinaldo is declared president....declared president by whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbini (talk • contribs) 
:Please be bold.  Asking on talk pages usually is fruitless, as I have found personally.Travb 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Original edit                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	Newer edit
Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo joined Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. Lacking a military of his own, Bonifacio allied himself with a rival group. When Aguinaldo's group and this rival force joined forces in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Linn, p.5 Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - Bonifacio or Aguinaldo.	Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo from the landlorded elite class, joined the Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself known as the Magdalo faction. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. When Aguinaldo's group joined forces with Bonifacio in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Linn, p.5  Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - the worker Bonifacio or elite Aguinaldo.
In December of 1897, the futility of the struggle was becoming apparent on both sides. Although Spanish troops were able to defeat insurgents on the battlefield, they could not suppress guerrilla activity. In August, armistice negotiations were opened between Aguinaldo and a new Spanish governor. By mid-December, an agreement was reached in which the governor would pay Aguinaldo the equivalent of US$800,000, and the rebel leader and his government would go into exile. Aguinaldo established himself in Hong Kong, and the Spanish bought themselves time.                                                                                                                                                                       	In December of 1897, the futility of the struggle was becoming apparent on both sides. Although Spanish troops were able to defeat insurgents on the battlefield, they could not suppress guerrilla activity. In August, armistice negotiations were opened between Aguinaldo and a new Spanish governor. By mid-December, an agreement was reached in which the governor would pay Aguinaldo the equivalent of US$800,000, and the rebel leader and his government would go into exile. This was called the Biak na Bato agreement. Aguinaldo established himself in Hong Kong, and the Spanish bought themselves time. He soon denounced the Revolution and declared Filipino combatants to be bandits. However, Filipino revolutionaries continued guerilla warfare without Aguinaldo against Spain.
When the United States declared war on the Spanish, Aguinaldo, backed by the American military, resumed the revolution. In a matter of months, Aguinaldo and his resistance fighters conquered nearly all of the Spanish-held ground within the Philippines. With the exception of Manila, which was completely surrounded by Aguinaldo and his rebel army of 12,000, the Filipinos controlled the Philippines. Aguinaldo and his guerillas also turned over 15,000 Spanish prisoners to the Americans, offering them valuable intelligence.                                                                                                                                                                                                       	When the United States declared war on the Spanish, Aguinaldo, backed by the American military, returned to the islands to reclaim the Revolution. In a matter of months, Aguinaldo and his resistance fighters conquered nearly all of the Spanish-held ground within the Philippines. With the exception of Manila, which was completely surrounded by Aguinaldo and his rebel army of 12,000, the Filipinos controlled the Philippines. Aguinaldo and his guerillas also turned over 15,000 Spanish prisoners to the Americans, offering them valuable intelligence.
By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.
===Comments===
*Please cite all additions, with a page number if available.  
====Paragraph one:====
Original edit                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	Newer edit
Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo joined Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. Lacking a military of his own, Bonifacio allied himself with a rival group. When Aguinaldo's group and this rival force joined forces in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Linn, p.5 Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - Bonifacio or Aguinaldo.	Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo from the landlorded elite class, joined the Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself known as the Magdalo faction. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. When Aguinaldo's group joined forces with Bonifacio in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Linn, p.5  Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - the worker Bonifacio or elite Aguinaldo.
# This paragraph is quoting Linn, p.5.  The new edits are not on Linn, p.5. I can type up the exact wording of Lynn, if necessary, but it is available on Amazon or Google.  Any changes to a sourced section needs to be sourced, otherwise readers will feel that the new information is on Lynn, page 5, when it is not.
#Grammatical errors: from the landlorded elite class is incorrect grammar.  From the landowning upper class would be more grammatically correct.  But again, this does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
#Confusing edit: From: When Aguinaldo's group and this rival force joined forces in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader.  to When Aguinaldo's group joined forces with Bonifacio in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Aguinaldo did not join forces with Bonifacio, Aguinaldo joined forces with Bonifacio group.  And again, this does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
#known as the Magdalo faction. This does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
#the worker Bonifacio or elite Aguinaldo.  These are discriptive adjectives which attempt to show that Aguinaldo was rich and Bonifacio was "one of us" a peoples person.  Since it has already been established above, using sourced material, that Bonifacio was poor, the reader does not need to be reminded of this again.
====Paragraph two====
He soon denounced the Revolution and declared Filipino combatants to be bandits. However, Filipino revolutionaries continued guerilla warfare without Aguinaldo against Spain.
Response to claim this is factually incorrect: 
:factually correct per further readings below - Benevolent Assimilation
Please kindly explain what "further readings below - Benevolent Assimilation".  Aguinaldo denounced the revolution when he was caught by Americans, but I have no recollection that he did the same thing with the Spanish.  Did you mean the Americans?
I added all the sources citing Benevolent Assimilation, and the vast majority of all of the other footnotes too. I have Benevolent Assimilation right here.  It is available to view on Amazon.com.  Can you tell me what page you are relying on?  Or what section of Philippine-American War you are relying on?  I plan on rereading all applicaple sections as soon as I finish talking with you.  I have no doubt that you are 110% correct, but this addition needs to be verifiable.
====Paragraph three====
Original edit                                                                                                          	Newer edit
When the United States declared war on the Spanish, Aguinaldo, backed by the American military, resumed the revolution.	}
The original sounds more encyclopedic. The new edit sounds very patriotic.  Aguinaldo was not the only Filipino leader involved in the revoltion.  
This is a minor issue, and I would happy to add back this edit if needed.
====Paragraph four====
Original edit                                                                                                                                                         	Newer edit
By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.	By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.
Please add  tags or cite the deleted comment on the talk page to avoid revert wars.  If no one responds within a week, delete the unsourced sentence.  This avoids revert wars.
This sentence was added here Revision as of 22:17, 11 April 2006.
The footnote was incorrectly attributed from this Revision as of 18:52, 9 April 2006, so the footnote does not apply to this text.
The original footnoted text:
:On July 6, 1892, Andrés Bonifacio, a former peddler of lower-class origins, founded a secret society known as the Kataastaasan Kagalanggalang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan ("The Highest and Most Honorable Society of the Sons of the Country"), or Katipunan. In 1897 Emilio Aguinaldo seized control of the movement and executed Bonifacio. In December 1897 Aguinaldo agreed to the Spanish terms, offering him a lucrative pension to leave this islands. With forty of his associates he came down from the mountains and set sail for Hong Kong. When the United States declared war he met with an junion American diplomat (the Consul at Singapore) and asked permission to return. Admiral George Dewey decided to allow him to the islands on May 19. Admiral Dewey explained that he had promised nothing regarding the future. "From my observation of Aguinaldo and his advisers I decided that it would be unwise to co-operate with him or his adherents in an official manner.... In short, my policy was to avoid any entangling alliance with the insurgents, while I appreciated that, pending the arrival of our troops, they might be of service." [Brands 46]
Signed:Travb (talk)   18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: *Please cite all additions, with a page number if available.  
====Paragraph one:====
Original edit                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	Newer edit
Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo joined Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. Lacking a military of his own, Bonifacio allied himself with a rival group. When Aguinaldo's group and this rival force joined forces in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Linn, p.5 Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - Bonifacio or Aguinaldo.	Bonifacio, however, was not a gifted military leader and suffered many defeats at the hands of the Spanish. One Filipino leader, Emilio Aguinaldo from the landlorded elite class, joined the Katipunan in 1895 and used his position to recruit and organize a Katipunan faction loyal to himself known as the Magdalo faction. Aguinaldo then militarily gained control of much of Eastern Cavite. When Aguinaldo's group joined forces with Bonifacio in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Linn, p.5  Disputes and infighting soon erupted within the Philippine Resistance, mostly concerning who would lead the revolution - the worker Bonifacio or elite Aguinaldo.
# This paragraph is quoting Linn, p.5.  The new edits are not on Linn, p.5. I can type up the exact wording of Lynn, if necessary, but it is available on Amazon or Google.  Any changes to a sourced section needs to be sourced, otherwise readers will feel that the new information is on Lynn, page 5, when it is not.
#Grammatical errors: from the landlorded elite class is incorrect grammar.  From the landowning upper class would be more grammatically correct.  But again, this does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
#Confusing edit: From: When Aguinaldo's group and this rival force joined forces in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader.  to When Aguinaldo's group joined forces with Bonifacio in March 1897, Bonifacio was dismissed as Katipunan leader, which he refused to accept. Aguinaldo did not join forces with Bonifacio, Aguinaldo joined forces with Bonifacio group.  And again, this does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
#known as the Magdalo faction. This does not appear in Lynn, so any additions to what Lynn says need to be sourced, please.
#the worker Bonifacio or elite Aguinaldo.  These are discriptive adjectives which attempt to show that Aguinaldo was rich and Bonifacio was "one of us" a peoples person.  Since it has already been established above, using sourced material, that Bonifacio was poor, the reader does not need to be reminded of this again.
====Paragraph two====
He soon denounced the Revolution and declared Filipino combatants to be bandits. However, Filipino revolutionaries continued guerilla warfare without Aguinaldo against Spain.
Response to claim this is factually incorrect: 
:factually correct per further readings below - Benevolent Assimilation
Please kindly explain what "further readings below - Benevolent Assimilation".  Aguinaldo denounced the revolution when he was caught by Americans, but I have no recollection that he did the same thing with the Spanish.  Did you mean the Americans?
I added all the sources citing Benevolent Assimilation, and the vast majority of all of the other footnotes too. I have Benevolent Assimilation right here.  It is available to view on Amazon.com.  Can you tell me what page you are relying on?  Or what section of Philippine-American War you are relying on?  I plan on rereading all applicaple sections as soon as I finish talking with you.  I have no doubt that you are 110% correct, but this addition needs to be verifiable.
====Paragraph three====
Original edit                                                                                                          	Newer edit
When the United States declared war on the Spanish, Aguinaldo, backed by the American military, resumed the revolution.	}
The original sounds more encyclopedic. The new edit sounds very patriotic.  Aguinaldo was not the only Filipino leader involved in the revoltion.  
This is a minor issue, and I would happy to add back this edit if needed.
====Paragraph four====
Original edit                                                                                                                                                         	Newer edit
By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.	By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.
Please add  tags or cite the deleted comment on the talk page to avoid revert wars.  If no one responds within a week, delete the unsourced sentence.  This avoids revert wars.
This sentence was added here Revision as of 22:17, 11 April 2006.
The footnote was incorrectly attributed from this Revision as of 18:52, 9 April 2006, so the footnote does not apply to this text.
The original footnoted text:
:On July 6, 1892, Andrés Bonifacio, a former peddler of lower-class origins, founded a secret society known as the Kataastaasan Kagalanggalang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan ("The Highest and Most Honorable Society of the Sons of the Country"), or Katipunan. In 1897 Emilio Aguinaldo seized control of the movement and executed Bonifacio. In December 1897 Aguinaldo agreed to the Spanish terms, offering him a lucrative pension to leave this islands. With forty of his associates he came down from the mountains and set sail for Hong Kong. When the United States declared war he met with an junion American diplomat (the Consul at Singapore) and asked permission to return. Admiral George Dewey decided to allow him to the islands on May 19. Admiral Dewey explained that he had promised nothing regarding the future. "From my observation of Aguinaldo and his advisers I decided that it would be unwise to co-operate with him or his adherents in an official manner.... In short, my policy was to avoid any entangling alliance with the insurgents, while I appreciated that, pending the arrival of our troops, they might be of service." [Brands 46]
Signed:Travb (talk)   18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Original edit                                                                                                                                                         	Newer edit
By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.	By the summer of 1898, the Spanish were completely defeated in the Philippines, as the Americans went on to occupy the city of Manila after a battle with the Spanish.
Please add  tags or cite the deleted comment on the talk page to avoid revert wars.  If no one responds within a week, delete the unsourced sentence.  This avoids revert wars.
This sentence was added here Revision as of 22:17, 11 April 2006.
The footnote was incorrectly attributed from this Revision as of 18:52, 9 April 2006, so the footnote does not apply to this text.
The original footnoted text:
:On July 6, 1892, Andrés Bonifacio, a former peddler of lower-class origins, founded a secret society known as the Kataastaasan Kagalanggalang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan ("The Highest and Most Honorable Society of the Sons of the Country"), or Katipunan. In 1897 Emilio Aguinaldo seized control of the movement and executed Bonifacio. In December 1897 Aguinaldo agreed to the Spanish terms, offering him a lucrative pension to leave this islands. With forty of his associates he came down from the mountains and set sail for Hong Kong. When the United States declared war he met with an junion American diplomat (the Consul at Singapore) and asked permission to return. Admiral George Dewey decided to allow him to the islands on May 19. Admiral Dewey explained that he had promised nothing regarding the future. "From my observation of Aguinaldo and his advisers I decided that it would be unwise to co-operate with him or his adherents in an official manner.... In short, my policy was to avoid any entangling alliance with the insurgents, while I appreciated that, pending the arrival of our troops, they might be of service." [Brands 46]
Signed:Travb (talk)   18:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph four