Talk:Philippine–American War

message: I think the Filipino casualties section of the infobox should be changed. The estimate of one million civilian casualties isn't supported by most sources and those high estimates are said to have resulted from misreading of sources. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:C0F1:70A0:FCF4:F79E (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties? 

message: In this edit, I added a bit and linked this image of Aguinaldo's August 3, 1900 decree. The text in the image is handwritten in the English language. I would like to include a transcription of the text either on the image page or in this article (preferably the former), but I haven't been able to read it all. I could ask for help with this in several places but, of those, I'm guessing that this is probably the one most likely to produce results. Most of the text is pretty readable, but there are a few places where neither myself nor my wife could make it out. We had saved a rough partial transcription, but that seems to have been lost. Help here would be appreciated. 17:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text of the Aguinaldo August 3, 1900 decree 

message: Both the de-facto and de-jure situations re the continuance of the Philippine Republic government following Aguinaldo's capture need clarification here and in other articles. I have added some content at a point where such info needs mention in this edit about that, but this content probably contradicts other related material here and in other articles. This needs further editorial work with WP:DUE, WP:V in mind, probably starting with the insertion of Contradictory inline and  templates at appropriate points in this and other articles. I wish I had the time and the available sources to dig further into this now, but I don't. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filipino governmental situation following Aguinaldo's capture 

message: There have lately been a number of edits to the article adding and removing content related to this subtopic and arguing in edit summaries about what sources provide acceptable support and what do not. That should be sorted out in discussion here -- not by edit war article revisions.
I haven't dug into this much myself and I'm limited to online sources, but I may see what I can find as time allows. A quick google today did turn up this book, described there as "Angel Velasco Shaw, Luis H. Francia
NYU Press, 2002 - History - 468 pages". The section titled A CLASH OF INTERESTS: German and American Territorial Ambitions beginning on page 23 seems to have some topically relevant information that might be citeable in support of article assertions on this subtopic. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: From Template:Infobox military conflict documentation "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – ... The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated (see discussion)." Specific RfC is  here. Now, if Germany did provide Philipines with actual material support, then that could be worth mentioning somewhere in article main text (not infobox), but such contentious claim would still need a better source than a newspaper article from 1899. Plenty of academic literature has been published about the conflict.--Staberinde (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assertions of German support for the Philippine side