Talk:Philippine–American War/Archive 1

message: ---
In 1914, Spooney Spoonikus, U.S. Secretary of the Interior for the Philippines (1901-1913) described "the regime of civilization and improvement which started with American occupation and resulted in developing naked savages into cultivated and educated men."
---
Spooney Spoonikus?? Could someone with the proper educational background correct this, please? Gimmick Account 17:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sacred Consesus exists because people who know the truth are much more able to speak out here at wiki. In short, it doesn't exist or do please be bold and edit to what you feel is correct and truthful; however you interpret it. You (or the other person who mentioned the badminton thing)will probably then be challenged to what your (his)sources are .  This may be your only chance to do so.--Jondel 01:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very unlikely name in the article 

message: This sentence is utterly inaccurate from a physics standpoint:
The fierceness of the resistance forced the American development and deployment of the Colt .45 pistol, which had a large enough caliber round to knock back a charging enemy.
Bullets fired from any gun carry no more momentum than their "kickback". The kickback of a colt .45 would have to be enough to knock the shooter back just as much as the person he shot. Also, a gun bullet that fast would just pierce through the target, and so would only transfer a fraction of its momentum, meaning the shooter would be knocked back more than the shootee.
so yeah i removed that sentence. 147.154.235.53 12:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that bullets were made less sharp, even blunt. The sharp would pierce through. But the blunt bullets would knock down an onrushing suicidal amok muhajeen.--Jondel 12:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Physics Anyone?

message: Just read the section on the Philippine war--online at Amazon.  Boot mentions the attrocities of both Americans and Filipinos.  There are a couple of entries which made me raise my eyebrow--but other than this, it is a decent 30 pages--Boot covers both american attrocities and Filipino atrocities--he mentions the water cure and the infamous Jacob H. Smith and the trial of Littleton Waller (p 122), and even the concentration camps (p 123). Boot's writing, from what i have read from other authors, seems accurate (other than a few minor issues).
I quoted Boot on the main page, and added a Filipino attrocities section.  Sorry, my mistake. This is my mea culpa.  Travb 09:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't know why my previous changes were reverted. CJK 18:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, most of your changes where returned, I decided I was being too heavy handed and to "POV" dependant, but I had already added several new paragraphs by that time, so I went ahead and searched the page history, and added many of your changes back. Travb 19:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, taking a closer look, I don't have a problem with your edits. Thank you. CJK 20:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boot's book [[The Savage Wars of Peace]]

message: JOEFIXIT, I added the quote in the English Education section. Travb 05:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added quote

message: Any suggestions on how to include this disgusting justification of the war into the article?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lodge_Committee_testimony_from_the_New_York_Times#Topics_of_the_Times
It is by the imperialist New York Times.  I have been reading the NYT Lodge Committee articles and the articles on the Senate debates. These jingoists make me truly sick to my stomache. Travb 12:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I suppose we can tell that everthing the Filipinos say is true and what the US says is automatically false? CJK 17:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, look a case in point.Travb 19:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to incorporate this disgusting justification into the article

message: JOEFIXIT wrote:
The subesquent American brutality towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.
JOEFIXIT, whatever man.  It is a more milder version of what you said before, which is great, but I still dislike the sentence. You win because you are more persistent than me. I will keep it in, simply because I respect your work on the battles of the Philippine-American War and don't want to offend you.Travb 00:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey JOEFIXIT its cool.  You and CJK fight it out. I've had my say, you know how I feel about it.Travb 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JOEFIXIT edit

message: I don't know what else you would call it. I changed it to aggression, since we have some people who really wanna play this thing by the book. I guess this saying from the Second Boer War article 'After a drawn out 9 day seige' would be pov to! Maybe some people wouldn't consider that drawn out. huh. Being as how I can count NUMEROUS articles that have what you would consider POV in it, if ur using that as a standard!. Why change this one because it's hard for some of us Americans to digest that we actually did somthing like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEFIXIT (talk • contribs) 
::How about change it to American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes?  
::The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.
::This makes a section of the sentence non-POV: up to this point:
::The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men...
::But then you have the problem of citing in the remainder of the sentence:
::...morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.
::...as mentioned above.  
::The closest thing we have to citing your idea in this article is what I added:
::As one historian wrote about Marinduque, the first island with concentration camps: "The triple press of concentration (camps), devastation, and harassment led Abad (the Marinduque commander)...to request a truce to negotiate surrender terms...The Army pacified Marinduque not by winning the allegiance of the people, but by imposing coercive measures to control their behavior and separate them from the insurgents in the field. Ultimately, military and security measures proved to be the (essential element) of Philippine pacification." This assessment could probably be applied to all of the Philippines.
::How about this sentence, can we agree on this? :
::The subesquent American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.  (same footnote as Marinduque footnote above...)
::This edit deletes the word "morale".
::But I will let you and CJK fight this out. I won't edit this sentence anymore without your approval. Travb
==="Morale" in history books===
If I can find a sentence in a history book which confirms the morale of the Filipinos was low because of American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes. If I find this sentence, this will make your statment nearly impervious to future attack.  I hate to "cherry pick" and search history books specifically to support a particular view, but this unfortunatly appears the only way to satisfy both of us.
But thus far, I haven't found a historian which states this.
Benevolent Assimilation : The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, by Stuart Miller mentions the low morale of American soilders but does not mention anything about the low morale of Filipino resistance. Travb 06:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  brutality POV? 

message: If I can find a sentence in a history book which confirms the morale of the Filipinos was low because of American torture, concentration camps, and war crimes. If I find this sentence, this will make your statment nearly impervious to future attack.  I hate to "cherry pick" and search history books specifically to support a particular view, but this unfortunatly appears the only way to satisfy both of us.
But thus far, I haven't found a historian which states this.
Benevolent Assimilation : The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, by Stuart Miller mentions the low morale of American soilders but does not mention anything about the low morale of Filipino resistance. Travb 06:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Morale" in history books