Talk:Philippine Revolution

message: I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how referencing sources usually works, but I think it would be clearer if the external links were called references if they were used while writing the article.  If the Library of Congress Country Studies/Area Handbook was used as a reference, maybe we should list this too even if it is public domain.Onionhound 06:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Also see WP:FOOT, WP:CITE, and WP:V. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I provided a wikilink to Philippine-American war in the Aftermath section. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've reverted part of this edit, changing "mis-understood the conflict in Quiapo" back to "mistook the fireworks of Auiapo". Both versions lack cited supporting sources, but I don't understand the change. What conflict in Quiapo? I had taken the previously mentioned fireworks to be in celebration of (as the section says, "Novales declared the independence of the Philippines from Spain and crowned himself Emperor of the Philippines."
Who the heck is Novales, anyhow? This article makes no other mention of him. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criollo insurgencies section 

message: The list currently reads Manila, Bulacan, Cavite, Pampanga, Tarlac, Laguna, Batangas, and Nueva Ecija, after this edit replaced Bataan with Tarlac. I'm not really clear on the geography, either now or in 1896 or on the details of the development of the revolution, but I see that, in a section headed "The Revolution Spreads", the cited supporting source cited mentions 
*Pasig, Pandakan, Pateros, Tagig, Kalookan, San Pedro Makati, Mariquina in Manila
*Kawit, General Trias, Noveleta in Cavite
*San Mateo, Montalban (now Rodriguez) in Rizal
I've tagged this . Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eight provinces 

message: I've noticed as changes pop this article up on my watchlist that English usage in this article is deteriorating. I would reword, but sometimes I'm not sufficiently familiar with the material to do that. One illustrative paragraph where a change popped up today:
Rizal did many anti-Spanish writings. His two novels, Noli Me Tangere (Touch Me Not, 1887) and El Filibusterismo (The Filibuster, 1891), exposed Spanish abuses in socio-political and religious aspects. The publication of his first novel brought the infamous agrarian conflict in his hometown Calamba, Laguna in 1888 when Dominican haciendas fell into trouble of submitting government taxes. In 1892, Rizal, after his return from the Americas, established the La Liga Filipina (The Filipino League), a Filipino association organized to seek reforms from the colonial government. When the Spaniards learned that their haunted writer was in the Philippines, they arrested and deported Rizal a few days after the Liga was established. 
*"Rizal did many anti-Spanish writings."?? "Many of Rizal's writings were anti-Spanish" would be better, if that's what is intended to be said.
*I'm guessing that "brought" should be "brought to light".
*"... fell into trouble of submitting government taxes." ???
*"... their haunted writer ..."??? I'm guessing that this might have been intended to be something like "the writer they had been hunting", except that I don't see anything establishing that the Spanish were hunting him.
Also, not having read Rizal, I have trouble following the connection between Noli Me Tangere and "brought the infamous agrarian conflict in his hometown ...". The wikilinked article about the novel doesn't help. A page-numbered cite to something like this showing where that novel "brought the infamous agrarian conflict" would help.
This article needs to be looked at by someone who can write English and who knows the material better than I.
Also, supporting sources should be cited.  looks like it contains some useful and relevant material. Perhaps other supporting cites can be found in something like . Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Hello, i was wondering of German Empire's involvement of the Philippine Revolution.  The Background is like this:
After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 to 1871, Germany's (or should i called it) diplomatic relations of France was still not yet what you called "Peaceful". The Second French Repubic's relations to Spain after the French involvement in the civil war (that is even before the Franco-Prussian war) is like Friendly what i called due to France's support to the Royalist against the Liberals. Germany's tensions to France's allies (like Britain and Spain) is growing weary and could start a world war. So Germany planed to supply weapons to rebel factions from France and its Allies' colonies like the Philippine that is under Spain. One German-made weapon that is used by the Katipunan is the bolt action Dreyse needle gun. Although it is not written in the article that it is used by the Katipunan, Few of these guns were delivered secretly and used by the Katipunan. When the Katipunan's numbers grow larger, supplies of this gun were needed and when the Philippines is now independent, it became the First Philippine Republic and PRA's main weapon of choice. Before the Philippine-American war, the Republic needed a new rifle to replace the existing Needle gun. They choose the Mauser rifle (M1889-91) so that is why we have in our local history books that Emilio Aguinaldo ordered i think 100'000 rifles. And also there have been reports that the early Armed Forces (1899-1900) have a Cannon (no specific classification) that is being made by Krupp.
Whether it is true or not, there are still questions that cannot be answered until today. This is only one of the backgrounds of Germany's involvement in World's revolutions of the late 19th century. If you have any quesions in this discussion, please write it down. By the way, there are many photos of this kind of rifles that are being used by the early Philippine Army. Thank you and MABUHAY!!.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikido Philippines (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Empire's involvement in the Revolution 

message: I have read in the book Stories from the Margins by Cornelio Bascara about the suspected Filipino japonesismo, which added to the fears of Spain of German influence in the Philippines. It was said that since 1894, Japan wanted to buy off the Philippines from Spain. Also, the Katipunan asked for Japanese aid from a certain admiral of which it is unknown to the revolutionaries if he had any voice to the Japanese High Command. I wanted to add it to the article but I'm afraid it would make the article longer. Should I make a separate article? Arius1998 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese influence to the Philippine Revolution 

message: The article currently says, "[...] The exact date and location are disputed, but two possibilities have been officially endorsed by the Philippine government: August 26 in Balintawak and later, August 23 in Pugad Lawin. Thus the event is called the "Cry of Pugad Lawin" or "Cry of Balintawak". However the issue is further complicated by other dates such as August 24 and 25 and other locations such as Kangkong, Bahay Toro and Pasong Tamo. Furthermore, at the time "Balintawak" referred not only to a specific place, but also a general area that included some of these proposed sites like Kangkong." 
This seems to have come from this July 2009 edit.
This appears to have problems, since August 23 is not later than August 26. Perhaps, though, it means that the August 23 date was endorsed later than the August 26 date.
This is supported by two cited sources, (Agoncillo 1990, pp. 171–17) and (Gatbonton 2000 -- no page number given, and cited from two other places in the article). of the sources cited is a Philippine government source (despite the article content saying, "two possibilities have been officially endorsed by the Philippine government").
The full cite for the first source is
*
That is not previewable online, but I happen to have a copy. Page 171 of that source says that Bonifacio called a general assembly to be held in Balintawak on August 24; departed (from Manila, I infer) on the night of 19 August and arrived in Balintawak before midnight; left Balintawak for Kangkong with 500 others on August 21 and, after overnighting proceeded to Pugadlawin in the afternoon of August 22.
The other source cited is
*
Special:BookSources/971-814-004-2 cannot locate that ISBN with either Google Books or Amazon, and neither of those can locate the title.
I checked some other sources.
;Philippine Government online sources
*The Katipunan Revolution, Subcommission on Cultural Heritage says, '[...] the Philippine Revolution exploded on August 23, 1896, in the event that is  commemorated as the "Cry of Pugadlawin.
*Message of President of Roxas honoring the 50th anniversary of the Cry of Balintawak, August 26, 1946 seems to put the date at August 26.
*Bonifacio Sesquicentennial says, "Caloocan used to be part of Tondo until 1815 when it became a municipality. The town’s growth surged after the completion of the Manila-Dagupan railway in 1892. It was there, in August 23, 1896, that Andres Bonifacio led the famous cry that sent the clear message of resistance to Spanish rule. [...]"
*Milestones in History, quezoncity.gov.ph says, "August 23, 1896 [...] an event known today as the Cry of Pugad Lawin."
*Manifesto to Certain Filipinos by José Rizal, joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph says, "SETTING:  In August, 1896, the Katipunan was prematurely discovered by the Spanish authorities. Bonifacio escaped capture and on the 26th of that month, at Balintawak on the outskirts of Manila, raised the cry of revolt [NOTE: The action commonly referred to as “The Cry of Balintawak” actually happened in Pugadlawin, History of the Filipino People by Agoncillo, 8th ed.]."
;Book sources
* says that Bonifacio rallied the Katippuneros to an emergency meeting in Balintawak on August 26, and does not mention Pugad Lawin.
* (which I cannot locate by ISBN in Google Books) says on page 150 that Bonifacio and around 500 rebels left Balintawak and proceeded to Kangkong, moving onwards to Pugad Lawin the next day.
* (which I cannot locate by ISBN in Google Books) says on page 176 that the meeting took place on August 23 in Pugadlawin
* (which I cannot locate by ISBN in Google Books) says on page xv that an attempt to distort history in the 1920s and 30s cluminated in 1962 when the "Cry of Pugad Lawin" officially superseding the "Cry of Balintawak". On page 48, the book says that an analysis of eyewitness and contemporary sources on the Cry yields a conclusion that "the so-called 'Cry of Pugad Lawin' is an invention", and provides considerable detail about that. The book also concludes that "There is ample documentation on the tearing of the cedulas and the initial encounter of the revolution. The chronology of those events therefore no longer hingees on the testimony of just one of the eyewitnessses." The book includes a table titled "Document L : Summary of Katipunan Meetings and Armed Engagements 21-27 August 1896" which lists meetings according to 13 sets of differing primary sources analyzed in the book on various of these dates in Balingtawak, KangKong, and other places. There is an entry in the table legend ("PL") for Pugad Lawin, but the table doesn't show any meetings identified with that entry.
Could someone please try to straighten the article out about dates and venues related to the Cry?
Or perhaps some discussion here is in order. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cry -- dates and sources 

message: This edit caught my eye. I'm wondering whether the unchanged still-cited supporting source (not previewable online) supports the article content as revised.
Also, I'm tempted to add a lot of  tags after refs citing (Custodio & Dalisay 1998) and (Gatbonton 2000). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes vs. cited sources, pagenos 

message: An anonymous user changed the end date of the Philippine Revolution from 1898 to 1902.  I changed it again but to 1897, not to 1898, to correspond to the date of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, though I am happy with 1898. I did add a note however that explains my position and that says, "Some historians include in the Philippine Revolution the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars and therefore use 1902 as the end date of the Philippine Revolution.  To avoid duplication between the Philippine Revolution and the Philippine-American War article, this article treats the Philippine Revolution as having ended with the Pact of Biak-na-Bato in 1897."  My main reason for keeping the date of this article as either 1897 or 1898 is consistency and non-redunacy.  It is consistent because other articles use 1898 to delineate the Spanish from the American eras. It avoids redundancy because if we extended this article up to 1902 then we would end up either absorbing the Philippine-American War article or having substantial portions of both articles saying the same thing.  Perhaps a simple footnote is not sufficient to explain that some treat 1896-97 and 1898-1902 as different conflicts with different combatants (Spain and America respectively) while others treat both as two phases of the same event.  Perhaps we need a paragraph in the body of the article explaining the relationship between the two.  I am happy with either one, provided that we can get some decent citations.  It is difficult to talk about messy human history in a logical fashion in an article format.  Doing so often requires treating things as distinct when things are not that distinct and clear. Us messy human beings do not act as clearly, as delineated as historians yearn to treat us. I think that we Wikipedians can maintain some logical distinction between the Revolution and War articles while also mentioning the messy nature of the conflict(s) and the fact that they did not end in a big dramatic climax (e.g. with atomic bombs and a formal declaration of surrender) that is nicely distinct and definitive for writers of history. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  End date 

message: Today, while looking at something else, I noticed that the lead said, "On June 12 [(of 1898)], Aguinaldo issued the Philippine Declaration of Independence, and the First Philippine Republic was established." This has been in the article since this 2009 edit, but the oversimplification here distorts too much, IMO.
As I recall without checking:
*On 19 May, 1898, Dewey returned Aguinaldo to Manila from Hong Kong.
*On 24 May, Aguinaldo proclaimed (I'm not sure whether this was verbal or whether there might have been a written proclamation) that he either was establishing or would establish a government with himself as dictator.
*On 12 June, he issued a declaration of independence from Spain.
*On 18 June, he officially established his dictatorial government.
*On 24 June, he changed the character of his government from dictatorial to revolutionary.
*In January of 1899, the First Philippine Republic was established.
I probably got some of those dates wrong, but they are approximately correct.
Given this, I have changed the content asserting, ""On June 12 [(of 1898)], Aguinaldo issued the Philippine Declaration of Independence, and the First Philippine Republic was established." to reead, ""On June 12 [(of 1898)], Aguinaldo issued the Philippine Declaration of Independence." Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of changes to the lead 

message: This edit caught my eye. Among other changes, it changes the infobox designation of the position held by Bonifacio and Aguinaldo from "Supremo/President" to "President". My understanding is that Bonifacio held a position designated "Supremo" (Agoncillo 1990 p.152), that Aguinaldo held a position designated as "President" (Agoncillo 1990 p.178), and that it is incorrect to refer to Bonifacio as "President". Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "President" is synonymous w/ Supremo for the fact that his full title in the Sovereign Tagalog Nation is "Supreme President (Spanish: Presidente Supremo; Tagalog: Kataastaasang Pangulo) see List of unofficial Presidents of the Philippines. HeneraVicente23  (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designation of Bonifacio's position 

message: Here, I have WP:BOLDly reverted three recent edits, one by an anonymous editor and two by a registered editor with only these two edits logged. I have not had the time to go through them in detail, but one edit summary says, "I have corrected the facts in this article based on official historical documents."; one of the sources I noticed being cited in that edit is this 1960 journal article which appears be a review of or commentary about this book by its author. That book is cited by some WP articles touching on the topic of this article, but it is hardly an official historical document. That book is cited following a sentence which characterizes the $20M payment made by the U.S. to Spain as "a superlative bargain", which is apparently an editorial characterization of the description here in that book; that description being described there as a sneering comment made by Thomas Brackett Reed during debate of a Senate resolution. I am very busy this week, but I'll try to find the time at some point to take a closer look at this. In the meantime, please discuss here as needed. Thanks. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits reverted June 28, 2019 

message: This edit caught my eye. It changed result=Truce, followed by intervention of the Spanish-American War to result=Filipino Victory in the infobox, saying The Revolution didn't ended in a truce the Pact of Biak na Bato was temporary, by the second phase the Officer from HK returns and resume the Battle until Spain Goverment surrenders and driven out. That opened a can of worms for me.
The article mentions Biak-na-Bato in the Course of the Revolution section. Two sections follow that: Spanish–American War, which takes us through the Philippine Declaration of Independence and the First Philippine Republic, and Philippine–American War. Subsequent history, including American rule, the Commonwealth era, and eventual Philippine independence are not mentioned. The edit raised the question for me about where to draw an ending line here on the revolution. The infobox now draws that line past a "truce to end the revolution" (that is from the Pact of Biak-na-Bato article) onwards to a transient moment of revolutionary victory, but the article continues past that line.
I started to add a section on American Rule, Commonwealth era, and Independence, thinking perhaps to change the infobox to result=eventual independence, but scrapped that and started this discussion here instead. I'm not sure that is the best course for the article, but I don't know what to suggest as better.
Discussion? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the revolution 

message: This edit caught my eye. I've partially reverted it by removing Spanish–American War. The infobox docs say that this optional parameter is for "the larger conflict containing the event described in the article", and I think that it would be more correct to say the converse -- that the Philippine Revolution contained the SpanAm War. Those two would probably be better characterized as two separate conflicts which happened to intersect in time and to interact strongly. Characterizing the Philippine Revolution as part of a war between two foreign colonizing powers would probably raise the hackles of a lot of Filipinos. and rightly so IMO. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partof in infobox 

message: I have recently added cite-supported information to this article mentioning Isabelo Artacho, who was apparently a fairly major figure in the Philippine revolution and is mentioned in various other WP articles (see here). I have just come a additional related and somewhat contradictory information in what appears to be a book self-published in Manila sometime after 1955. I will mention and link that source here for future reference and, possibly, as a source of or steppingstone to further for article content. The book is:  Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isabelo Artacho 

message: There used to a list of battles box below the warbox,and it wad such a great way to navigate this topic, and for some reason it was taken off. 93.136.227.244 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think  you refer to the campaignbox that is still present below the infobox. click [show] there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the list of battles removed 

message: Here, I have made a WP:BOLD change to the article. I haven't seen the source cited by the citation I've removed, but the assertion citing it mentioned, "after the fall of Imus", and I saw no foundation for that mention (the Battle of Imus article appears to be about another battle there). My replacement content is cite-supported and agrees with the content of other relevant articles. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonifacio after Tejeros