Talk:Battles of the Philippine–American War

message: Both this article and the Campaigns article have a hatnote dated February 2010 announcing this proposal and designating this as the discussion page for the proposal. It is now November 2011, and I am beginning this discussion. 
This morning, I sat down with , intending to create a Battle of Malolos article (Malolos having been the seat of the insurgent First Philippine Republic government at the time). I perceived a need for a Battle of Caloocan article first, so I created that one. A little reading about Malolos (see pp.92–100 of the book) wisened me up to the facts that (1) there was a campaign of that name, (2) that campaign included the battle of Caloocan, and (3) there was no climactic battle for Malolos to conclude the campaign. It seems to me useful to have the info on campaigns and on battles in one article so the relationships are clear. it seems to me that separating the info into separate articles invites contradictions between those articles.
I think the articles should be merged, and it seems to me that the merged article ought to be renamed Campaigns and Battles of the Philippine–American War. I envision a section for each campaign containing a brief synopsis of the campaign and a list of battles in the campaign. I see that both this article and the Campaigns article are tagged as . I propose that the content of the Campaigns article be reviewed against  and, where needed, brought into line with the info in that source while being merged into this article. In the absence of opposition, I'll probably begin work on this soon. I'll be traveling for the next few weeks, so any work I do will probably be spotty. Comments? Suggestions for article renamings and redirects? I'll mention this discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "mere" seems to be editorialization, but re "insurrection" see , , , etc. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Exactly the point? If it was used for them during the Spanish rule it would have been correct, as it started as a rebellion against Spain. But the US is a wholly different matter. The establishment of the First Philippine Republic makes it a war between states. By labeling the war as an "insurrection", it implies that the US was the established authority in the few years after the Spanish-American war and that their acquisition of the Philippines was uncontroversial and widely accepted by the populace. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I infer that you are commenting in re the political status of the First Philippine Republic. That point is better discussed in other venues. I would suggest Talk:First Philippine Republic, Talk:List of historical unrecognized states and/or Talk:Timeline of Philippine sovereignty. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[List of Philippine insurrection campaigns]] 

message: As I mentioned above, this turned into more of a rewrite than I expected. Yesterday, before I completely finished, the book I was using as my main reference disappeared. in my current location (Romblon, Romblon) it is unworkable for me to obtain another copy of the book, and I was nearing burnout on this anyhow. So, I've cleaned up my working draft and published it as Campaigns of the Philippine Insurrection.
The intent here, once again, is that this merged article replace the two separate articles, by replacing the two separate articles with redirects to this new article. I have not done that replacement, as the merged article needs to be reviewed by someone other than me, and it does still need some more work. Please comment further on the talk page of the new article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged article needs review