Talk:Battles of the Philippine–American War

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	United States military history task force

Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance

	Philippines portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Merge with List of Philippine insurrection campaigns

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 Linn, Brian McAllister (2000). The Philippine War, 1899-1902. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1225-3., 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 {{unreferenced}}. I propose that the content of the Campaigns article be reviewed against "U.S. Army Campaigns : Philippine Insurrection". The U.S. Army Center of Military History. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) 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)[reply]

Support merge and rename. "Insurrection" is not quite NPOV as it demotes the Philippine forces to mere rebels. Redirects (and various combinations of the titles) should still be kept though.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 04:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"mere" seems to be editorialization, but re "insurrection" see [1], [2], [3], etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting work on this. It is turning into more of a rewrite than I anticipated. I'll work on it in my userspace for now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Update -- the under-construction merged article is beginning to take shape. I am working on it at User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox. Tentatively, it will be titled Campaigns of the Philippine Insurrection, and will be the target of redirects from the two articles being merged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged article needs review

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)[reply]