![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 13, 2011, August 13, 2013, August 13, 2015, August 13, 2017, and August 13, 2019. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
were there 1,500 or 15,000 defenders?
To answer your question, 15,000 defenders. jasendorf
The photo which accompanies this article states that it is from 1899. The Battle of Manila occured in August of 1898.
I suspect that the original creator of this page relied on the one source listed for this terminology. I have gone through and replaced all instances of the term with Filipinos or something not as biased. BrokenSphere Msg me 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The Battle of Manila took place on August 13, 1898. The First Philippine Republic was established on January 23, 1899 . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
See http://www.archive.org/stream/philippinespastp01worcuoft/philippinespastp01worcuoft_djvu.txt pp. 99-100
"There was certainly no need of Insurgent assistance in the assault on Manila.
The reports which reached Aguinaldo that the surrender of Manila had been agreed upon in advance were correct, as is shown by the following testimony of Admiral Dewey [in a U.S. Senate hearing]:
"Senator Patterson. When did you reach an understanding with the Spanish commander upon the subject,^ — how long before the 12th or 13th of August?
"Admiral Dewey. Several days before.
"Senator Patterson. To whom did you communicate the arrangement that you had ?
"Admiral Dewey. General Merritt and, of course, all of my own captains — General Merritt, and I think a council of officers on board of one of the steamers. I think there were several army officers present when I told the General that ; and I may say here that I do not think General Merritt took much stock in it.
"Senator Patterson. What statement did you make to them. Admiral, in substance?
"Admiral Dewey. That the Spaniards were ready to surrender, but before doing so I must engage one of the outlying forts. I selected one at Malate, away from the city. They said I must engage that and fire for a while, and then I was to make a signal by the international code, 'Do you surrender?' Then they were to hoist a white flag at a certain bastion ; and I may say now that I was the first one to discover the white flag. We had 50 people looking for that white flag, but I happened to be the first one who saw it. I fired for a while, and then made the signal according to the programme. We could not see the white flag — it was rather a thick day — but finally I discovered it on the south bastion; I don't know how long it had been flying there when I first saw it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.202.129 ( talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This edit caught my eye, and my attention was quickly drawn to {{
flagicon|First Philippine Republic}}
as the flag of the revolutionaries in this battle, and the wikilink [[Philippine Revolutionary Army|Philippine Revolutionaries]]
.
[[File:Flag of the Tagalog people.svg|23x15px]]
I have WP:BOLDly edited the article's infobox accordingly.
Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
On re-reading the above, I see that the May 28, 1898 date when the
file:Philippines Aguinaldo flag (obverse).svg is said to have first been flown preceded this battle. I ought to have noticed this earlier. This suggests that
file:Philippines Aguinaldo flag (obverse).svg (
) probably ought to be the flag used here. I'll re-edit the article to show that one instead.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
06:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Manila (1898). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There are the makings of an edit war over this and I'm opening this discussion in hopes of heading that off. There are several ways to view this battle depending on what viewpoint it is seen from. This article takes a view which is widespread in historical sources in describing it as a "mock battle" between U.S. and Spanish forces. which were on opposite sides in the Spanish-American War. cooked up in order to prevent capture of the Spanish capital in the Philippines by Filipino forces and to engineer its capture by U.S. forces instead. That is clear from a reading of the article, I thank, and from the cited supporting sources. I have no argument with this general description.
The editorial point at issue here is over how to summarize the result of this battle in the infobox.
I assert that a better summary of the result of this "mock battle" staged with the intent to deprove Filipino forces of a victory, and accmplishing that intended result, is "American victory". I think that this is supported by the article (read the second paragraph of the lead section). I have edited the article here to that effect. Please discuss further here if needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
the result= parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"
, so perhaps the two bullet points there, which were there prior to my edit, ought not to be there.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly removed this image depicting Dewey's Asiatic Squadron in the Battle of Manila Bay which had taken place on May 1 from this article about the August 13 battle which was primarily a land action. Since the Background section does mention that May 1 battle, I initially re-edited the image caption for better clarity to read "US Navy Asiatic Squadron lead by the USS Olympia against the Spanish fleet" but, having done that, I still thought that the image was very out of place here, especially appearing where it did in the rendered article, and removed it instead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, the term "fake" grated on me at first -- the article uses "mock" in several places and that's the term I recall being used in outside sources. However, according to the distionaries I checked there is a nuance there, with "fake" implying intent to deceive while "mock" does not. Considering that, "fake" seems to be a better term here. Perhaps there is a better term than "fake", but none comes immediately to my limited mind. In any case, terminology should be consistent and I've left this edit introducing inconsistent terminology unreverted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This revert with an edit summary saying Not understanding removal reason caught my eye. The revert restored an observation re Filipino forces saying, "who have brown skin", that had been removed with an edit summary saying, Removed biased language, leaving a description of Spain earlier in that sentence as "a white country" intact. One of the two supporting sources cited is this journal article by historian Vicente L. Rafael. Some out-of-context snippets from that article illustrate my take on this:
President William McKinley had declared the policy of the United States toward the Philippines to be one of “benevolent assimilation,” seeking, he claimed, to Christianize and educate the Filipinos after centuries of captivity by Catholic Spain. War and occupation were thus meant to liberate, not subjugate the Filipinos. Taking on the white man’s burden, Americans were to wait upon the needs and wants of their captives, described in Kipling’s famous poem as “half devil and half-child.” [...] the American colonization of the Philippines cast white Americans as innately superior yet exceptionally benevolent masters of a wild collection of tribes of dark, brown, and mixed raced people yet to be tamed and pacified into a people who recognized their place in the new imperial order.[...] the Spaniards and Americans had agreed to stage a “mock battle” of Manila to save Spanish face and keep Filipinos out of the city, thereby making it seem that the Spaniards lost to fellow whites, not to an accursed collection of natives and half-breeds. Furious at this deception, the Filipinos withdrew to a town north of Manila. There, they convened a constitutional convention, inaugurating the First Philippine Republic, organizing a congress that drew up laws and sent out ambassadors to secure international recognition of the new nation.
I think that mention of skin color (particularly the mentioned shadings) here has due weight for inclusion. It does seem to cry out for a clarifying footnote citing sources with more detail about the social importance of skin color in stratified societies where the top strata tend to be predominately of one shading. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a BRD discussion in response to this edit by unregistered editor 154.205.22.6. I have undone that edit here. The effect of that edit, which I see as problematic, was to change the Result field in the infobox from "American victory" to "Filipino-American victory" with an edit summary saying (BE MORE SPECIFIC). The undone reversion had reverted a previous edit making the same change by the same editor, saying (Not consistent with the 'Battle' section of the article.)
154.205.22.6, please WP:register. Please also read WP:BRD and WP:EW. Please also read the final two paragraphs in the Battle section of this article. Please pay particular attention to the sentence there saying, "Except for the unplanned casualties, the battle had gone according to plan; the Spanish had surrendered the city to the Americans, and it had not fallen to the Filipino revolutionaries." That assertion cites a supporting source that is readable online and is linked in the cite. If you disagree with this, please read WP:DUE. DUE is part of WP:NPOV; please read that as well.
Please continue this discussion below if you disagree instead of edit-warring in the artice. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I am very confused why Generals Mariano Noriel, Pio Del Pilar, Gregorio Del Pilar, Artemio Ricarte are removed from the commanders involved, according to Wtmitchell's summary of edit that Luna participated in 1899 battle of Manila, which is a fact, but what I was referring to is that the mentioned generals above participated in the 1898 Battle of Manila in this wikipedia article, and therefore their names must be included in the "commanders and leaders" section and were the same commanders (except Gregorio Del Pilar) who also fought or participated in the 1899 Battle of Manila, which can be seen in the main wikipedia page/article of Antonio Luna and the Battle of Manila (1899) RA9Markus ( talk) 04:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Per
Talk, trimmings from the
Battle of Manila subsection in the Philippine-American War article are being placed here in case they need to be added to this article, with a reference to the pre-trimmed
version:
<content>
As General Aguinaldo did not visit me on my arrival, nor offer his services as a subordinate military leader, and as my instructions from the President fully contemplated the occupation of the islands by the American land forces, and stated that 'the powers of the military occupant are absolute and supreme and immediately operate upon the political condition of the inhabitants,' I did not consider it wise to hold any direct communication with the insurgent leader until I should be in possession of the city of Manila, especially as I would not until then be in a position to issue a proclamation and enforce my authority, in the event that his pretensions should clash with my designs. [4]
The officers of the United States Army who believed that the insurgents were informing the Spaniards of the American movements were right. Sastrón has printed a letter from Pío del Pilar, dated July 30, to the Spanish officer commanding at Santa Ana, in which Pilar said that Aguinaldo had told him that the Americans would attack the Spanish lines on August 2 and advised that the Spaniards should not give way, but hold their positions. Pilar added, however, that if the Spaniards should fall back on the walled city and surrender Santa Ana to himself, he would hold it with his own men. Aguinaldo's information was correct, and on August 2 eight American soldiers were killed or wounded by the Spanish fire. [5]
References
</content> Chino-Catane ( talk) 04:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 13, 2011, August 13, 2013, August 13, 2015, August 13, 2017, and August 13, 2019. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
were there 1,500 or 15,000 defenders?
To answer your question, 15,000 defenders. jasendorf
The photo which accompanies this article states that it is from 1899. The Battle of Manila occured in August of 1898.
I suspect that the original creator of this page relied on the one source listed for this terminology. I have gone through and replaced all instances of the term with Filipinos or something not as biased. BrokenSphere Msg me 17:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The Battle of Manila took place on August 13, 1898. The First Philippine Republic was established on January 23, 1899 . Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
See http://www.archive.org/stream/philippinespastp01worcuoft/philippinespastp01worcuoft_djvu.txt pp. 99-100
"There was certainly no need of Insurgent assistance in the assault on Manila.
The reports which reached Aguinaldo that the surrender of Manila had been agreed upon in advance were correct, as is shown by the following testimony of Admiral Dewey [in a U.S. Senate hearing]:
"Senator Patterson. When did you reach an understanding with the Spanish commander upon the subject,^ — how long before the 12th or 13th of August?
"Admiral Dewey. Several days before.
"Senator Patterson. To whom did you communicate the arrangement that you had ?
"Admiral Dewey. General Merritt and, of course, all of my own captains — General Merritt, and I think a council of officers on board of one of the steamers. I think there were several army officers present when I told the General that ; and I may say here that I do not think General Merritt took much stock in it.
"Senator Patterson. What statement did you make to them. Admiral, in substance?
"Admiral Dewey. That the Spaniards were ready to surrender, but before doing so I must engage one of the outlying forts. I selected one at Malate, away from the city. They said I must engage that and fire for a while, and then I was to make a signal by the international code, 'Do you surrender?' Then they were to hoist a white flag at a certain bastion ; and I may say now that I was the first one to discover the white flag. We had 50 people looking for that white flag, but I happened to be the first one who saw it. I fired for a while, and then made the signal according to the programme. We could not see the white flag — it was rather a thick day — but finally I discovered it on the south bastion; I don't know how long it had been flying there when I first saw it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.202.129 ( talk) 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This edit caught my eye, and my attention was quickly drawn to {{
flagicon|First Philippine Republic}}
as the flag of the revolutionaries in this battle, and the wikilink [[Philippine Revolutionary Army|Philippine Revolutionaries]]
.
[[File:Flag of the Tagalog people.svg|23x15px]]
I have WP:BOLDly edited the article's infobox accordingly.
Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
On re-reading the above, I see that the May 28, 1898 date when the
file:Philippines Aguinaldo flag (obverse).svg is said to have first been flown preceded this battle. I ought to have noticed this earlier. This suggests that
file:Philippines Aguinaldo flag (obverse).svg (
) probably ought to be the flag used here. I'll re-edit the article to show that one instead.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
06:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Manila (1898). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There are the makings of an edit war over this and I'm opening this discussion in hopes of heading that off. There are several ways to view this battle depending on what viewpoint it is seen from. This article takes a view which is widespread in historical sources in describing it as a "mock battle" between U.S. and Spanish forces. which were on opposite sides in the Spanish-American War. cooked up in order to prevent capture of the Spanish capital in the Philippines by Filipino forces and to engineer its capture by U.S. forces instead. That is clear from a reading of the article, I thank, and from the cited supporting sources. I have no argument with this general description.
The editorial point at issue here is over how to summarize the result of this battle in the infobox.
I assert that a better summary of the result of this "mock battle" staged with the intent to deprove Filipino forces of a victory, and accmplishing that intended result, is "American victory". I think that this is supported by the article (read the second paragraph of the lead section). I have edited the article here to that effect. Please discuss further here if needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
the result= parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"
, so perhaps the two bullet points there, which were there prior to my edit, ought not to be there.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
17:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly removed this image depicting Dewey's Asiatic Squadron in the Battle of Manila Bay which had taken place on May 1 from this article about the August 13 battle which was primarily a land action. Since the Background section does mention that May 1 battle, I initially re-edited the image caption for better clarity to read "US Navy Asiatic Squadron lead by the USS Olympia against the Spanish fleet" but, having done that, I still thought that the image was very out of place here, especially appearing where it did in the rendered article, and removed it instead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
In this edit, the term "fake" grated on me at first -- the article uses "mock" in several places and that's the term I recall being used in outside sources. However, according to the distionaries I checked there is a nuance there, with "fake" implying intent to deceive while "mock" does not. Considering that, "fake" seems to be a better term here. Perhaps there is a better term than "fake", but none comes immediately to my limited mind. In any case, terminology should be consistent and I've left this edit introducing inconsistent terminology unreverted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
This revert with an edit summary saying Not understanding removal reason caught my eye. The revert restored an observation re Filipino forces saying, "who have brown skin", that had been removed with an edit summary saying, Removed biased language, leaving a description of Spain earlier in that sentence as "a white country" intact. One of the two supporting sources cited is this journal article by historian Vicente L. Rafael. Some out-of-context snippets from that article illustrate my take on this:
President William McKinley had declared the policy of the United States toward the Philippines to be one of “benevolent assimilation,” seeking, he claimed, to Christianize and educate the Filipinos after centuries of captivity by Catholic Spain. War and occupation were thus meant to liberate, not subjugate the Filipinos. Taking on the white man’s burden, Americans were to wait upon the needs and wants of their captives, described in Kipling’s famous poem as “half devil and half-child.” [...] the American colonization of the Philippines cast white Americans as innately superior yet exceptionally benevolent masters of a wild collection of tribes of dark, brown, and mixed raced people yet to be tamed and pacified into a people who recognized their place in the new imperial order.[...] the Spaniards and Americans had agreed to stage a “mock battle” of Manila to save Spanish face and keep Filipinos out of the city, thereby making it seem that the Spaniards lost to fellow whites, not to an accursed collection of natives and half-breeds. Furious at this deception, the Filipinos withdrew to a town north of Manila. There, they convened a constitutional convention, inaugurating the First Philippine Republic, organizing a congress that drew up laws and sent out ambassadors to secure international recognition of the new nation.
I think that mention of skin color (particularly the mentioned shadings) here has due weight for inclusion. It does seem to cry out for a clarifying footnote citing sources with more detail about the social importance of skin color in stratified societies where the top strata tend to be predominately of one shading. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a BRD discussion in response to this edit by unregistered editor 154.205.22.6. I have undone that edit here. The effect of that edit, which I see as problematic, was to change the Result field in the infobox from "American victory" to "Filipino-American victory" with an edit summary saying (BE MORE SPECIFIC). The undone reversion had reverted a previous edit making the same change by the same editor, saying (Not consistent with the 'Battle' section of the article.)
154.205.22.6, please WP:register. Please also read WP:BRD and WP:EW. Please also read the final two paragraphs in the Battle section of this article. Please pay particular attention to the sentence there saying, "Except for the unplanned casualties, the battle had gone according to plan; the Spanish had surrendered the city to the Americans, and it had not fallen to the Filipino revolutionaries." That assertion cites a supporting source that is readable online and is linked in the cite. If you disagree with this, please read WP:DUE. DUE is part of WP:NPOV; please read that as well.
Please continue this discussion below if you disagree instead of edit-warring in the artice. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I am very confused why Generals Mariano Noriel, Pio Del Pilar, Gregorio Del Pilar, Artemio Ricarte are removed from the commanders involved, according to Wtmitchell's summary of edit that Luna participated in 1899 battle of Manila, which is a fact, but what I was referring to is that the mentioned generals above participated in the 1898 Battle of Manila in this wikipedia article, and therefore their names must be included in the "commanders and leaders" section and were the same commanders (except Gregorio Del Pilar) who also fought or participated in the 1899 Battle of Manila, which can be seen in the main wikipedia page/article of Antonio Luna and the Battle of Manila (1899) RA9Markus ( talk) 04:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Per
Talk, trimmings from the
Battle of Manila subsection in the Philippine-American War article are being placed here in case they need to be added to this article, with a reference to the pre-trimmed
version:
<content>
As General Aguinaldo did not visit me on my arrival, nor offer his services as a subordinate military leader, and as my instructions from the President fully contemplated the occupation of the islands by the American land forces, and stated that 'the powers of the military occupant are absolute and supreme and immediately operate upon the political condition of the inhabitants,' I did not consider it wise to hold any direct communication with the insurgent leader until I should be in possession of the city of Manila, especially as I would not until then be in a position to issue a proclamation and enforce my authority, in the event that his pretensions should clash with my designs. [4]
The officers of the United States Army who believed that the insurgents were informing the Spaniards of the American movements were right. Sastrón has printed a letter from Pío del Pilar, dated July 30, to the Spanish officer commanding at Santa Ana, in which Pilar said that Aguinaldo had told him that the Americans would attack the Spanish lines on August 2 and advised that the Spaniards should not give way, but hold their positions. Pilar added, however, that if the Spaniards should fall back on the walled city and surrender Santa Ana to himself, he would hold it with his own men. Aguinaldo's information was correct, and on August 2 eight American soldiers were killed or wounded by the Spanish fire. [5]
References
</content> Chino-Catane ( talk) 04:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)