![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Philippine Army. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Philippine Army at the Reference desk. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philippine Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I want to rearrange the order of the table like in this order first is the small arms (infantry weapons), next is the armoured vehicles followed by utility vehicles, then the artillery, next is the aircrafts and the last one is the watercrafts. Does anyone agree with this?
06:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I want to add photos of the different equipments. The photos that I will use is from their respective articles. They will be put on the first column. Does everyone okay with my idea? 06:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii ( talk • contribs)
Phichanad ( talk) 10:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead section of this article asserts, "Though the Philippine Army grew out of forces which fought in opposition to and which defeated forces led by General Artemio Ricarte, General Ricarte is considered to be the father of the Philippine Army." This is supported by an apparently dead link source. If the "father of the Philippine Army" assertion is supportable, the rest of the assertion here needs support and clarification. It seems to me that if this is to remain in the article, it should be supported, clarified, and expanded somewhere outside of the lead section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to add some information in re the above closed discussion.
I think that it is fair and probably supportable to say, as the article now does, that the Philippine Army "traces its roots to the Tejeros Convention of March 22, 1897" (traces its own roots, that is). I don't have reference material handy just now but, as I remember having gone through this previously, other sources trace the roots of the present day Philippine Army more directly to the PS and the PC than to the Tejeros Convention and the Philippine Revolutionary Army which grew out of it. I note that this article does mention the PS and PC in regard to the history of the Philippine Army. I'm not at this point suggesting a change in the article but, having put this info together, I thought that I would document it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this the PRA is the Procedure of the Philippine Army. The Philippine Constabulary is not a even a true military force it was a police force not a military. The Philippine Scouts is indeed an army but not a procedure of the Philippine Army Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 07:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the initial paragraph of the Philippine–American War (1899-1902) section of this article here for discussion. That paragraph concerned itself with the Philippine Revolutionary Army (PRA), and was added without support in this October 2016 edit. As it appeared before I moved it here, it read as follows:
On February 4, 1899, the Filipino-American War broke out. Due to the superiority of American arms, the Filipinos fell from one position to another until they were forced to disband. Even after the official cessation of hostilities and as the Americans have established government in 1901, the Filipino revolutionaries continued their struggle for freedom. Between that time until 1935, the revolutionary army lost many of its cohorts in sporadic engagements with American troops, but never lost its cause.
What caught my eye about the paragraph was the bit reading "the Filipinos fell from one position to another". "fell" there was probably intended to read "fell back".
However, what grates on me about this paragraph is that it begs the inference that the PRA was an organizational forerunner of the current Philippine Army. That has been much discussed in the past and, as far as I can see, is simply not true. In
this speech marking the centennial of the end of the Philippine-American War, President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo acknowledged that the
First Philippine Republic ended with the capture of
Emilio Aguinaldo on March 23, 1901, commented that some Filipino generals fought on after that date under the leadership of General
Miguel Malvar, and acknowledged asserted that the war ended with the surrender of General Malvar on April 16, 1902. As far as I can see, the Philippine Revouutionary Army as an entity ceased to exist on or prior to April 16, 1902 and the Philippines had no army from that point up until the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 1 on December 21, 1935.
I suggest that the paragraph quoted above be simply removed from the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as a procedure of the Philippine Army
https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 07:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as Procedure of the Philippine Army. The PRA was disbanded in 1899 to begin the Guerrilla War against the Americans so there is still a Army even after it was disbanded by Aguinaldo even after he was captured the 1st Philippine Republic has still a Army Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 08:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as a procedure of the Philippine Army
https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as Procedure of the Philippine Army. The PRA was disbanded in 1899 to begin the Guerrilla War against the Americans so there is still a Army even after it was disbanded by Aguinaldo even after he was captured the 1st Philippine Republic has still a Army Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 01:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Here, I've made a
WP:BOLD change in the article. It's a minor change in content, but it's a major change in the thinking behind the article. Basically, it is a change to
this edit to the article which was made on October 9, 2016. That edit inserted three paragraphs into the article with an edit summary saying →History: Fixed typo, Fixed grammar
. I only just now noticed the import of the one line of that earlier edit which I have now changed.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
11:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Here, I've tagged three elements of the list in the battles section of the infobox as Disputed, Philippine Revolutionary War, Spanish–American War, and Philippine–American War. A completely separate entity, the Philippine Revolutionary Army, did have engagements in those conflicts but, as I understand the relevant history, that entity has no organizational relationship with the present-day Philippine Army or with any of its predecessor organizations. In fact, that organization was defeated by opposing organizations which included the Macabebe Scouts and the Philippine Scouts, two entities which are predecessor organizations of the present day Philippine Army. The inclusion of the disputed items in the infobox begs the interpretation that the Philippine Revolutionary Army was a predecessor organization to the present-day Philippine Army and, as I understand it, such an interpretation would be incorrect.
I've also added a disputed tag to the assertion in the lead section reading, "The Army traces its roots in the Philippines to the Philippine Revolutionary Army founded in 1897". That assertion came into the article without support and in a slightly different form in this April 2021 edit, but I recall participating in related talk page discussions dating back to this (and, further back, this 2011 edit and, probably, earlier edits). I actually may have come up with the "traces their roots" phrase in order to distinguish belief from reality when earlier instances of the websites of the Philippine Army and/or the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) contained content stating or implying that. As far as see now, neither of those entities currently do trace their roots back in that way. Also, WP:LEAD guideline says, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."; If the thrust of this assertion is valid, the article body ought to contain citation-supported presentation of more detail about this than is provided by this unsupported assertion in the lead with no presentation of relevant detail of detail in the article body.
Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Having seen neither objection nor discussion since this edit several days ago, I have removed the disputed content in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The following comment was placed in an earlier section ( here) by Army-Ground Warfare ( talk · contribs):
I believe that comment fits more appropriately into this discussion here, and will respond here. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that right now; I'll try to get to this in a few hours. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about my slow response -- I'm pretty busy outside of WP at present. I've reverted I've indented the comment above for readability (see WP:TPO),
I'm not sure what "a procedure of the Philippine Army" is or who considers this to be a good characterization of the PRA. That other WP article on the Philippine Revolutionary Army covers the PRA, and that organization is separate from the Philippine Army which is the topic of this article and which (quoting from the article lead) "was established on December 21, 1935". I have looked at
this source, a page on the Philippine Army website, which you mentioned above and I see that it mentions the PRA as a part of the background of the current Philippine Army and that it neglects to mention that the PRA was defeated by forces which included the
Philippine Scouts and
Philippine Constabulary which, as described to some extent in the article and more completely in sources it cites, were later part of building the organization which is the topic of the article. Actually, from looking at that source you linked, I'm not copleatly clear on what the official position of the Philippine Army organization is on whether the PRA and the current PA are two parts of one organization that has been in existence since the founding of the PRA or whether the PRA is a part of the background leading up to the establishment of the current Philippine Army organization. If there is a source which makes this clearer, and if that boils down to different viewpoints on this which are contained in separate
reliable sources, perhaps this article and the PRA article both need expansion to clarify both viewpoints, per
WP:DUE..
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
11:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
(added) I took a look at the Philippine Army website (
[1]) and I don't see a clear path to the web page you linked above from the
Hamburger button menu there or from the About page (
[2]). I'm not clear that the content of the page you linked is intended as a statement in the voice of the Philippine army. However, I do see "For 122 years, the Philippine Army served as the protector of the Filipinos and a key player of nation building." on that About page. 2021 minus 122 is 1899 and would not agree with the claimed March 22, 1897 date which I reverted from the article
here. However, it does not agree with the currently claimed December 21, 1935 date taken from
National Defense Act of 1935 which established the current Philippine Army as an organization either. It looks to me as if this article needs some clarification regarding that disparity.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
16:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
(added) On further checking, I see that that 122 year figure is outdated. FWICS, it was added at or near
this April 6, 2019 version of that web page. Previous versions I've found of that page (e.g.,
this one) differ, but the full page might not be archived. In any case, that figure of 122 years doesn't look reliable on that page.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
19:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I've corrected the indent level of your comment above for better readability, per WP:TPO. I said above, "the PRA was defeated by forces which included the Philippine Scouts and Philippine Constabulary". That was from memory and I did not reconfirm details, but I believe that is confirmable. That was not a specific suggested modification to the content of this article, though. I still do not understand what you mean by "a procedure". I think that you may mean "a predecessor". One definition of that is "a thing that has been followed or replaced by another". I believe that it is inaccurate to assert that the the current Philippine Army replaced the PRA; if you know of a reliable source asserting that, please cite that reliable source. If a citeable reliable source does assert that, information about that might need to be reflected in this article, following WP:DUE.
I am aware that some Philippine nationalistic sentiment would draw a continuing relationship between the PRA of 1897-1899 and the Philippine Army created in 1935 which is the topic of this article. Perhaps this article should contain information about that. I'm not a good enough wordsmith to write that well, though, and I don't know what reliable sources might be cited in support. Perhaps you can provide concrete suggestions regarding that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I have again corrected the indent level of your comment for readability. You've linked that web page several times, and I have looked at it several times. As I have remarked and explained above, I do not see it as clearly intended as an assertion by the Philippine Army. Also, I disagree that the source you cited asserts what you represent it as asserting -- one might as well represent it as asserting that the Philippine Army is a successor of the Philippine land forces described there as having been tested in 1521 and of pre-colonization forces it mentions. That source also has other problems, some of which I have touched on above. I'm afraid that I have come to view you as a POV-pushing vandal not interested in improving this article through collaborative discussion with other editors. I do not believe that further discussion with you is warranted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
As with earlier comments, I've corrected the indentation above for readability. I don't understand what I'm being asked to explain but I think it is clear that the current PA is not the successor of the PRA. here I have added a bit to the article following on bits of previous exchanges relating to the Scouts and the Constabulary. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
As with earlier comments, I've corrected the indentation of your comment above for readability.
As I said above regarding your "rebirth" assertion, "I am aware that some Philippine nationalistic sentiment would draw a continuing relationship between the PRA of 1897-1899 and the Philippine Army created in 1935 which is the topic of this article. Perhaps this article should contain information about that. I'm not a good enough wordsmith to write that well, though, and I don't know what reliable sources might be cited in support. Perhaps you can provide concrete suggestions regarding that." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
As previously, I have corrected the indentation of your comments for readability. I don't think that continued interchanges between the two of us is accomplishing anything useful regarding improvement of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 read this in your last message you wanna know where did i get the rebirth of the Philippine Army in 1935 Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 06:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: Here, I have reverted your latest edit warring changes to the article. I will consider further changes similar to this to be deserving of blocking of your editing privileges, with an initial block period of three months. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139. Read This.
Your goona block me now because you cant win in this dispute?. Well because your wrong and you know you can't win in this dispute your just ignoring what i commented
The Philippine Army is founded in March 22 1897. The December 21 1935 is only consider as a Rebirth of the Philippine Army Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 23:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Your just making your own history of the philippine army that is a hoax Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 23:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Here, I have WP:BOLDly removed mention of the Spanish translation of the name (as Ejército del Tierra del Filipinas) from the infobox. I did this after seeing several edits changing the Spanish version of the name from Ejército Filipino. That former Spanish translation appeared without explanation in this October 25, 2020 edit. I don't know what the justification was for inserting the Spanish translation, but one possible justification might be the mention of Spanish along with Arabic in Article XIV, Section 7 of the Philippine constitution as an official regional language. That justification, however, might imply that translations of the name in Arabic and in other official regional languages ought to be listed as well as Spanish. Another possible justification might be the past history of the Philippines as a colony or Spain, but I don't see due weight in that connection for the mention of the Spanish translation of the name of this particular article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
469TH MBC lSOG OG KUSGAN ANGEL
RAW
PHILIPPINE KARANGALAN KABAYANIHAN KATUNGKULAN
KARANGALAN KAYAAB
MARINECORPS 25May 2024 PrivateFirstClass E-2 DELACRUZ Private First Class is expected to
E -2DELACRU Z
serve as a model for newly enlisted troops and carry out the orders of their superior officers to the best of their abilities
Private First Class is expeed ctct
ACRUZ Private First Class is expected to serve as a model for newly enlisted troops and carryout the orders of their superior officers to the best of their abilities. 112.201.224.176 ( talk) 00:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Philippine Army. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Philippine Army at the Reference desk. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philippine Army article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I want to rearrange the order of the table like in this order first is the small arms (infantry weapons), next is the armoured vehicles followed by utility vehicles, then the artillery, next is the aircrafts and the last one is the watercrafts. Does anyone agree with this?
06:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I want to add photos of the different equipments. The photos that I will use is from their respective articles. They will be put on the first column. Does everyone okay with my idea? 06:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii ( talk • contribs)
Phichanad ( talk) 10:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The lead section of this article asserts, "Though the Philippine Army grew out of forces which fought in opposition to and which defeated forces led by General Artemio Ricarte, General Ricarte is considered to be the father of the Philippine Army." This is supported by an apparently dead link source. If the "father of the Philippine Army" assertion is supportable, the rest of the assertion here needs support and clarification. It seems to me that if this is to remain in the article, it should be supported, clarified, and expanded somewhere outside of the lead section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to add some information in re the above closed discussion.
I think that it is fair and probably supportable to say, as the article now does, that the Philippine Army "traces its roots to the Tejeros Convention of March 22, 1897" (traces its own roots, that is). I don't have reference material handy just now but, as I remember having gone through this previously, other sources trace the roots of the present day Philippine Army more directly to the PS and the PC than to the Tejeros Convention and the Philippine Revolutionary Army which grew out of it. I note that this article does mention the PS and PC in regard to the history of the Philippine Army. I'm not at this point suggesting a change in the article but, having put this info together, I thought that I would document it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this the PRA is the Procedure of the Philippine Army. The Philippine Constabulary is not a even a true military force it was a police force not a military. The Philippine Scouts is indeed an army but not a procedure of the Philippine Army Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 07:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the initial paragraph of the Philippine–American War (1899-1902) section of this article here for discussion. That paragraph concerned itself with the Philippine Revolutionary Army (PRA), and was added without support in this October 2016 edit. As it appeared before I moved it here, it read as follows:
On February 4, 1899, the Filipino-American War broke out. Due to the superiority of American arms, the Filipinos fell from one position to another until they were forced to disband. Even after the official cessation of hostilities and as the Americans have established government in 1901, the Filipino revolutionaries continued their struggle for freedom. Between that time until 1935, the revolutionary army lost many of its cohorts in sporadic engagements with American troops, but never lost its cause.
What caught my eye about the paragraph was the bit reading "the Filipinos fell from one position to another". "fell" there was probably intended to read "fell back".
However, what grates on me about this paragraph is that it begs the inference that the PRA was an organizational forerunner of the current Philippine Army. That has been much discussed in the past and, as far as I can see, is simply not true. In
this speech marking the centennial of the end of the Philippine-American War, President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo acknowledged that the
First Philippine Republic ended with the capture of
Emilio Aguinaldo on March 23, 1901, commented that some Filipino generals fought on after that date under the leadership of General
Miguel Malvar, and acknowledged asserted that the war ended with the surrender of General Malvar on April 16, 1902. As far as I can see, the Philippine Revouutionary Army as an entity ceased to exist on or prior to April 16, 1902 and the Philippines had no army from that point up until the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 1 on December 21, 1935.
I suggest that the paragraph quoted above be simply removed from the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as a procedure of the Philippine Army
https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 07:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as Procedure of the Philippine Army. The PRA was disbanded in 1899 to begin the Guerrilla War against the Americans so there is still a Army even after it was disbanded by Aguinaldo even after he was captured the 1st Philippine Republic has still a Army Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 08:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as a procedure of the Philippine Army
https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as Procedure of the Philippine Army. The PRA was disbanded in 1899 to begin the Guerrilla War against the Americans so there is still a Army even after it was disbanded by Aguinaldo even after he was captured the 1st Philippine Republic has still a Army Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 01:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Here, I've made a
WP:BOLD change in the article. It's a minor change in content, but it's a major change in the thinking behind the article. Basically, it is a change to
this edit to the article which was made on October 9, 2016. That edit inserted three paragraphs into the article with an edit summary saying →History: Fixed typo, Fixed grammar
. I only just now noticed the import of the one line of that earlier edit which I have now changed.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
11:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Here, I've tagged three elements of the list in the battles section of the infobox as Disputed, Philippine Revolutionary War, Spanish–American War, and Philippine–American War. A completely separate entity, the Philippine Revolutionary Army, did have engagements in those conflicts but, as I understand the relevant history, that entity has no organizational relationship with the present-day Philippine Army or with any of its predecessor organizations. In fact, that organization was defeated by opposing organizations which included the Macabebe Scouts and the Philippine Scouts, two entities which are predecessor organizations of the present day Philippine Army. The inclusion of the disputed items in the infobox begs the interpretation that the Philippine Revolutionary Army was a predecessor organization to the present-day Philippine Army and, as I understand it, such an interpretation would be incorrect.
I've also added a disputed tag to the assertion in the lead section reading, "The Army traces its roots in the Philippines to the Philippine Revolutionary Army founded in 1897". That assertion came into the article without support and in a slightly different form in this April 2021 edit, but I recall participating in related talk page discussions dating back to this (and, further back, this 2011 edit and, probably, earlier edits). I actually may have come up with the "traces their roots" phrase in order to distinguish belief from reality when earlier instances of the websites of the Philippine Army and/or the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) contained content stating or implying that. As far as see now, neither of those entities currently do trace their roots back in that way. Also, WP:LEAD guideline says, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."; If the thrust of this assertion is valid, the article body ought to contain citation-supported presentation of more detail about this than is provided by this unsupported assertion in the lead with no presentation of relevant detail of detail in the article body.
Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Having seen neither objection nor discussion since this edit several days ago, I have removed the disputed content in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The following comment was placed in an earlier section ( here) by Army-Ground Warfare ( talk · contribs):
I believe that comment fits more appropriately into this discussion here, and will respond here. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that right now; I'll try to get to this in a few hours. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about my slow response -- I'm pretty busy outside of WP at present. I've reverted I've indented the comment above for readability (see WP:TPO),
I'm not sure what "a procedure of the Philippine Army" is or who considers this to be a good characterization of the PRA. That other WP article on the Philippine Revolutionary Army covers the PRA, and that organization is separate from the Philippine Army which is the topic of this article and which (quoting from the article lead) "was established on December 21, 1935". I have looked at
this source, a page on the Philippine Army website, which you mentioned above and I see that it mentions the PRA as a part of the background of the current Philippine Army and that it neglects to mention that the PRA was defeated by forces which included the
Philippine Scouts and
Philippine Constabulary which, as described to some extent in the article and more completely in sources it cites, were later part of building the organization which is the topic of the article. Actually, from looking at that source you linked, I'm not copleatly clear on what the official position of the Philippine Army organization is on whether the PRA and the current PA are two parts of one organization that has been in existence since the founding of the PRA or whether the PRA is a part of the background leading up to the establishment of the current Philippine Army organization. If there is a source which makes this clearer, and if that boils down to different viewpoints on this which are contained in separate
reliable sources, perhaps this article and the PRA article both need expansion to clarify both viewpoints, per
WP:DUE..
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
11:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
(added) I took a look at the Philippine Army website (
[1]) and I don't see a clear path to the web page you linked above from the
Hamburger button menu there or from the About page (
[2]). I'm not clear that the content of the page you linked is intended as a statement in the voice of the Philippine army. However, I do see "For 122 years, the Philippine Army served as the protector of the Filipinos and a key player of nation building." on that About page. 2021 minus 122 is 1899 and would not agree with the claimed March 22, 1897 date which I reverted from the article
here. However, it does not agree with the currently claimed December 21, 1935 date taken from
National Defense Act of 1935 which established the current Philippine Army as an organization either. It looks to me as if this article needs some clarification regarding that disparity.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
16:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
(added) On further checking, I see that that 122 year figure is outdated. FWICS, it was added at or near
this April 6, 2019 version of that web page. Previous versions I've found of that page (e.g.,
this one) differ, but the full page might not be archived. In any case, that figure of 122 years doesn't look reliable on that page.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
19:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I've corrected the indent level of your comment above for better readability, per WP:TPO. I said above, "the PRA was defeated by forces which included the Philippine Scouts and Philippine Constabulary". That was from memory and I did not reconfirm details, but I believe that is confirmable. That was not a specific suggested modification to the content of this article, though. I still do not understand what you mean by "a procedure". I think that you may mean "a predecessor". One definition of that is "a thing that has been followed or replaced by another". I believe that it is inaccurate to assert that the the current Philippine Army replaced the PRA; if you know of a reliable source asserting that, please cite that reliable source. If a citeable reliable source does assert that, information about that might need to be reflected in this article, following WP:DUE.
I am aware that some Philippine nationalistic sentiment would draw a continuing relationship between the PRA of 1897-1899 and the Philippine Army created in 1935 which is the topic of this article. Perhaps this article should contain information about that. I'm not a good enough wordsmith to write that well, though, and I don't know what reliable sources might be cited in support. Perhaps you can provide concrete suggestions regarding that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I have again corrected the indent level of your comment for readability. You've linked that web page several times, and I have looked at it several times. As I have remarked and explained above, I do not see it as clearly intended as an assertion by the Philippine Army. Also, I disagree that the source you cited asserts what you represent it as asserting -- one might as well represent it as asserting that the Philippine Army is a successor of the Philippine land forces described there as having been tested in 1521 and of pre-colonization forces it mentions. That source also has other problems, some of which I have touched on above. I'm afraid that I have come to view you as a POV-pushing vandal not interested in improving this article through collaborative discussion with other editors. I do not believe that further discussion with you is warranted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
As with earlier comments, I've corrected the indentation above for readability. I don't understand what I'm being asked to explain but I think it is clear that the current PA is not the successor of the PRA. here I have added a bit to the article following on bits of previous exchanges relating to the Scouts and the Constabulary. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
As with earlier comments, I've corrected the indentation of your comment above for readability.
As I said above regarding your "rebirth" assertion, "I am aware that some Philippine nationalistic sentiment would draw a continuing relationship between the PRA of 1897-1899 and the Philippine Army created in 1935 which is the topic of this article. Perhaps this article should contain information about that. I'm not a good enough wordsmith to write that well, though, and I don't know what reliable sources might be cited in support. Perhaps you can provide concrete suggestions regarding that." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
As previously, I have corrected the indentation of your comments for readability. I don't think that continued interchanges between the two of us is accomplishing anything useful regarding improvement of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 read this in your last message you wanna know where did i get the rebirth of the Philippine Army in 1935 Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 06:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: Here, I have reverted your latest edit warring changes to the article. I will consider further changes similar to this to be deserving of blocking of your editing privileges, with an initial block period of three months. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139. Read This.
Your goona block me now because you cant win in this dispute?. Well because your wrong and you know you can't win in this dispute your just ignoring what i commented
The Philippine Army is founded in March 22 1897. The December 21 1935 is only consider as a Rebirth of the Philippine Army Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 23:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Your just making your own history of the philippine army that is a hoax Army-Ground Warfare ( talk) 23:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Here, I have WP:BOLDly removed mention of the Spanish translation of the name (as Ejército del Tierra del Filipinas) from the infobox. I did this after seeing several edits changing the Spanish version of the name from Ejército Filipino. That former Spanish translation appeared without explanation in this October 25, 2020 edit. I don't know what the justification was for inserting the Spanish translation, but one possible justification might be the mention of Spanish along with Arabic in Article XIV, Section 7 of the Philippine constitution as an official regional language. That justification, however, might imply that translations of the name in Arabic and in other official regional languages ought to be listed as well as Spanish. Another possible justification might be the past history of the Philippines as a colony or Spain, but I don't see due weight in that connection for the mention of the Spanish translation of the name of this particular article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
469TH MBC lSOG OG KUSGAN ANGEL
RAW
PHILIPPINE KARANGALAN KABAYANIHAN KATUNGKULAN
KARANGALAN KAYAAB
MARINECORPS 25May 2024 PrivateFirstClass E-2 DELACRUZ Private First Class is expected to
E -2DELACRU Z
serve as a model for newly enlisted troops and carry out the orders of their superior officers to the best of their abilities
Private First Class is expeed ctct
ACRUZ Private First Class is expected to serve as a model for newly enlisted troops and carryout the orders of their superior officers to the best of their abilities. 112.201.224.176 ( talk) 00:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)