Talk:Katipunan

Summary
/summary -This is a brief summary of the article to be used in initiationg articles in other language versions. Please keep brief but feel free to add to it.--Jondel 07:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Katipunan Alphabet reference
This is just a reference for the alphabet used by the Katipunan or Kataastaasang, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng̃ mg̃á Anak ng̃  Bayan.


 * http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14822/14822-h/14822-h.htm


 * 30. Anong wika ang ginagamit ng̃ mg̃á kasapi sa "Katipunan"?
 * Ang tagalog; n͠guni't ang kahulugan ng̃ ilang titik ng̃  abakadang kastila ay iniba sa kanilang pagsulat ng̃  mg̃á kasulatan at gayon din sa paglagdá ng̃  kanilang mg̃á sagisag. Ang titik na "a" ay ginawang "z", ang "c" at "q" ay ginawang "k", ang "i" ay "n", ang "l" at "ll" ay "j" ang "m" ay "v", ang "n" ay "ll", ang "o" ay "c" at ang "u" ay "x". Ang f, j, v, x at z ng̃  abakadang kastila ay itinakwil pagka't hindi kailan͠gan. Sa maliwanag na ulat ay ganitó ang Abakadá (alfabeto) ng̃  "Katipunan" kung itutulad sa abakada ng̃  wikang kastila.


 * Rough translation:


 * 30. [What is the language used by the members of the "Katipunan"?]
 * [Tagalog; however, the meanings of some letters from the Spanish alphabet have been changed. The letter "a" becomes "z", "c" and "q" become "k", the letter "i" is "n", the letters "l" and "ll" are "j" letter "m" is "v", letter "n" is "ll", letter "o" is "c" and letter "u" is "x". The letters f, j, v, x at z are not not needed, and unused. Presented below is the "Katipunan" alphabet, when compared to the Spanish alphabet.]

Mk32 (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * so did it work, why nothing on its failure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.224.34 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Full name
I heard from someone that it's supposed to be Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalang na Katipunan and not what is currently on the main page. Can someone confirm/deny, with an explanation? --Evisruc 11:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was always ng mga Anak ng Bayan appended to the end of that, AFAIK . Although the mga maybe the modern version of manga (the latter not being used widely today). --Quess 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ng is short for nang. Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalang na Katipunan ng Anak ng Bayan is the complete official name but among the abbreviated forms are Katipunan, KKK and 'Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalang na Katipunan'. mga is short for manga. You don't pronounce ng or mga as is, but nang and manga, respectively.--Jondel 08:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Take note that ng and nang presently have different functions in Filipino sentences, and according to use ng would be more appropriate. About the Kagalanggalangang Katipunan/Kagalanggalang na Katipunan, either could be used because they both have the same meaning anyway. --Chemicalist 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * its actually called "Kataastaasang, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan or Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan" if im right, my filipino teacher said so- 2001:4456:113:1D00:60D6:EADA:4BC4:6417 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

This might be splitting hairs because the linkers "na" and "-ng" in Tagalog are basically the same, but for accuracy, is the official name "Kagalanggalang na Katipunan" or "Kagalanggalangang Katipunan"? I've checked the references used on this page. The former spelling is used by Megan Thomas, Ambeth Ocampo, Guerrero et al., Teodoro Agoncillo, and Hermenegildo Cruz. However, the latter spelling is used In the Tagalog wiki of Katipunan, an article from the National Historical Commission, a news article from Tempo, Ongsotto et al.'s textbook, and Francis St. Clair (oldest source so far, from 1902). Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Non support of Rizal,
What was the main reason Rizal did not support the Katipunan? Was it because he did not approve of violence or the Philippines was not strong and prepared enough or because he was pro-Spain ? I need this for translations. --Jondel 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Katipunan wanted to fight the Spanish directly, which the Illustrados(middle class people) at the time(Rizal included) didn't want. They wanted reforms so that the Philippines would be on equal standing to Spain like most of the other colonies instead of being completely independent.


 * (opinion from here on)


 * The Illustrados were basically afraid to lose the wealth they garnered with the Spanish. --Chemicalist 19:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Take into account that Rizal in his capacity as an educated man with history on his side had the foresight to see that the Revolution would never bear fruit against mighty Spain. All his training, education and deductions points to making the most of what the Filipinos had during the 18th century under a World Power. We may not agree with him today (I know I don't) but try to think like him at a time like that. VodkaDry 11:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Spain was militarily weak after the Napoleonic Wars. That’s why they lost Mexico and South America during the time. They were not like the Reconquista forces in Castille-Aragon, the Conquistadors in Mexico and South America, or the Spanish Armada in the golden age of piracy. That’s why the US military moved in. In Spain they were having their own domestic problems as seen 30 years later. Many able-bodied male Spaniards in Spain were avoiding conscription to fight in the Philippines and Cuba. While at the same time the Katipunan kicked every Spanish Garrisons in all of the cities and town in the Philippines without American help. Most of the firearms were bought in Hong Kong by the wealthy Katipunan leaders, and many average Filipinos were heavily into firearm ownership just like the Americans, Mexicans, and South Americans. The only place remaining in the Philippines was Manila and Dewey negotiated with Aguinaldo not to attack until his US Navy fleet arrived and they will handle the attack to make it appear that the Americans “liberated” the Philippines.
 * I don’t know about the other the Illustrados, but I read some where in a Philippine history book from the Philippines that Rizal did not support any revolutionary groups because Philippines did have a strong military (and still doesn’t). He traveled all over Europe and lived amongst Europeans. So he knows a little about the West. As soon as the Spanish left, another Western power (with superior military capabilities) would take over like the US. The British Royal Navy also invaded the Philippines during the 7 years war. --James 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Rizal was a reformist, who wanted equal rights for Filipinos, and for the Philippines to be recognized as a province of Spain. He understood the implications of any uprising, and even suggested to the Katipunan that they try to get the help of some Western power, like the United States. All of this, however, was advice. Rizal himself did not want to join the Katipunan. More than the wealth, one can probably think that Rizal understood that there were benefits to being a province of a Western power, having seen that the development of society in Europe did have benefits that could be good for the Philippines. If one goes by his writings, Rizal did consider violent uprising, but only as a last resort when all other things failed. Rmcsamson 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

dates
One has to read or look a long way down before even one date appears. As it now reads, the article is hard to use for some-one wanting to find out when KKK began and ended. Kdammers 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Zaide
Antiquated and unreliable. Should be replaced by more recent historians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.128.27 (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"First Filipino republic" subsection moved here for discussion
I have removed a section headed First Filipino republic and moved its content here. Apologies for not having noticed the under construction tag until after I had moved it. From August 24, 1896, the Katipunan became an open de facto government. Even though the society did have a unified structure, own laws and a centralized leadership, it turned to be working only when the revolution began. My comments: Again, apologies for not noticing the under construction tag Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be speaking of the government described Tagalog Republic, wherein several supporting sources are cited. Some of those sources could probably be usefully cited here, particularly
 * I don't think that the subsection title is particularly good. Perhaps "Revolutionary government" (but that's not much better, as there was at least one other of those)
 * I think insurgent would be a more accurate description that de facto.
 * If this material is to be included, I think it fits better as a level 3 subsection under Revolution rather than as a subsection of the Discovery section.
 * I am unable to parse the second sentence ("even though ...")
 * Hey, the reference section says that it has citing error. How can we resolve that?-- JL 09  q? c|undefined 13:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Translation of a vulgarity
The article quotes "Putang ina! Saan nalaman ni Rizal na kailangan mo munang magkaroon ng mga armas at barko bago maglunsad ng himagsikan? Saan niya nalaman iyon?", then translates it into English. Someone just changed the translation of "Putang ina!" from "Fuck" to "Thunder". Considering WP:CENSOR, it should not be censored. I've reverted the change, but I'm not a Tagalog-speaker and I'm not sure of the proper sense of the phrase. FWICT, it probably translates literally to something like "Whoremother!", but probably carries a meaning close to "Motherfuck!" in English.

WP:V also applies here. An intentional mistranslation of a direct quote by a Wikipedia editor done in the interest of censorship is against policy in a couple of different ways. I note that Wiktionary translates "Putang ina mo" here, but that's not precisely the same. I see that there is a ina article on the Tagalog Wikipedia, but as I don't speak Tagalog, that helps me not at all. I haven't seen the cited source, so I don't know what context this is quoted from. depending on the context, perhaps it might be OK to not requote the vulgarity and thereby avoid the need to translate it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Kabet?
Re this edit, some explanation of what the heck a "kabet" might be should be provided. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. I removed Bien Barrios in the list. First, kabet is a Filipino term for concubine, hence its use is dubious. Second, it is unusual to see people spanning years for about 100 years old (1894-2010). Third, Google return nothing about Bien Barrios and Andres Bonifacio's relationship. Finally (I guess the vandal's most disgusting mistake yet also the funniest :) ) was if Bien Barrios is really a person born in 1894, think that she is only 2 years old when revolution of 1896 broke up. And that she isn't born yet when Katipunan was founded and that she is only four years old when Bonifacio died. Would you believe that Bonifacio had an illicit affair with a toddler?-- JL 09 q?c 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit of attempts to solicit Japanese Aid
I saw this information in Jose Dizon's page and felt it was important to include

[quote]"Dizon was part of the committee that the Katipunan formed to secure arms from Japan with the connivance of a Japanese ship captain. Three months later, however, the Katipunan was uncovered and Dizon was among the hundreds who were arrested for rebellion."[/quote] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.99.112 (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Rizal included in list of notable members of Katipunan?
In the list of notable members of the Katipunan, Jose Rizal was included in the list as Supremo. However, the life dates (1863-1897) correspond to that of Bonifacio. While true that the Katipunan made Rizal honorary member and Supremo, he did not really join the separatist movement. I think this should be edited. Arius1998 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Katipunan's successor
In the Notable Katipuneros section, this article says
 * Emilio Aguinaldo (1869–1964) - First and only president of the then First Philippine Republic, Katipunan's successor. ...

I have a problem with the characterization of the First Philippine Republic as (quoting) "Katipunan's successor". I realize that this article needs to gloss over some detail but, IMHO, this oversimplification goes too far.


 * On March 22, 1897, the Tejeros Convention resulted in the formal dissolution of the Katipunan and its transformation into an insurgent revolutionary government with Aguinaldo as President (I'm glossing over some significant detail here).
 * On December 14, 1897, that insurgent revolutionary government de-facto ceased to exist with the signing of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato. Shortly thereafter, Aguinaldo went into exile in Hong Kong.
 * On May 19, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Admiral Dewey returned Aguinaldo too the Philippines.
 * On May 24, 1898, in Cavite, Aguinaldo issued a proclamation in which he assumed command of all Philippine forces and announced his intention to establish a dictatorial government with himself as dictator,
 * On 12 June 1898, at Aguinaldo's ancestral home in Cavite, Philippine independence from Spain was proclaimed.
 * On 18 June, Aguinaldo issued a decree formally establishing his dictatorial government.
 * On June 23, 1898 Aguinaldo issued a decree replacing his dictatorial government with a revolutionary government, with himself as President.
 * On 15 September 1898, a revolutionary congress convened in Malolos, Bulucan.
 * On September 29, 1898, that congress ratified the declaration of independence from Spain.
 * On January 23, 1899, the First Philippine Republic was formally established with the proclamation of the Malolos Constitution.

I think that the characterization of the insurgent First Philippine Republic as Katipunan's successor should be stricken. Perhaps, also, some bits of detail should be added re Aguinaldo. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Recently added material -- support and POV
Recent edits to this article beginning approximately with this edit appear to have introduced quite a bit of POV, much of it unsupported.

An unsupported section titled The First Philippine Republic was added, the lead sentence of which asserts, "The crowning achievement of the Katipunan-Magdiwang was the establishment of the first Philippine Republic." According to the First Philippine Republic article, "The Philippine Republic (Spanish: República Filipina, Tagalog: Republika ng Pilipinas), more commonly known as the First Philippine Republic or the Malolos Republic was [...] formally established with the proclamation of the Malolos Constitution on January 23, 1899 in Malolos, Bulacan, and endured until the capture and surrender of Emilio Aguinaldo to the American forces on March 23, 1901 in Palanan, Isabela, which effectively dissolved the First Republic." The My understanding is that the Katipunan movement effectively ceased to exist as an organization on March 29, 1897 at the Tejeros Convention. (Agoncillo 1990) -- much cited in this article -- says on page 177, that Bonifacio (chairing the Convention), "... acceded to the wish of some that a new government be established to replace the Katipunan." The history of the Philippine Revolution gets a more than a little bit messy after that, but that seems to me to mark the end of the Katipunan as an organization in the forefront of the revolution -- nearly two years prior to the establishment of the "República Filipina" government in Malolos in 1899.
 * Katipuman and the First Philippine Republic

A section with this title was added, and cites a couple of supporting sources. The subtopic of this section seems to me to have little topical weight. The section closes with an unsupported fragment regarding "the famous African-American Lieutenant, David Fagen who defected from the Americans to join the Filipinos due to his disgust of racism and imperialism." Aside from the apparent undue weight re Fagen, I think that the assertion re Fagen's motives here would need support. Looking in the David Fagen article, I see several sources cited
 * Foreign members of the Katipunan
 * says, "Reports indicate that he had constant arguments with his commanding officers and requested to be transferred at least three times which contributed to his growing resentment of the army. [...] On Nov. 17, 1899, Fagen defected to the Filipino army." (I point out in passing here Fagen's defection date relative to the Tejeros Convention date, and question whether Fagen was a member of the Katipunan).
 * and, apparently the same source cited twice differently in the Fagen article, also contains some info re him, but I don't see support there for his motives as described in this article.
 * cited there is a dead link.
 * and speak of Fagen but not his motives.

This section seems to have a very POV thrust, and no support for that thrust. I don't know much about this subtopic, but I googled around a bit and found, which doesn't support or directly refute assertions made in this section, but does make some interesting observations about Filipino freemasonry of the time in relation to Spanish freemasonry.
 * Betrayal of the Katipunan by Freemasonry

In sum, it seems to me that all this material should be removed. If retained, it should be rewritten from a more neutral perspective and solidly supported. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've WP:BOLDly removed the "Betrayal of the Katipunan by Freemasonry" section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Katipunan
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Katipunan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "alvarez": From Andrés Bonifacio: . From Philippine Revolution:  From Daniel Tirona: . 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Julian Carpio
In this edit I've removed a duplicated cite. The remaining copy is missing the title parameter -- I have not attempted to correct this. The cite(s) were added in this edit, apparently to support content added by that edit re [[Julian "Anastacio" Carpio (a redlink). This edit twiddled the content abit,, which there refers to Julian Carpio (still a redlink). The just-edited version of the article refers to Julián Felipe (not a redlink, but not Carpio) in a paragraph which goes on to say, "Carpio, like other Filipino revolutionaries, ...". There appears to be some confusion re Carpio here. Someone with better knowledge of the historical details here than I ought to take a look at this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Children of the ???"
This edit caught my eye. Without explanation, it changed "Children of the people" to read "Children of the nation". The supporting source cited, which the edit left unchanged, says "Children of the People" (uppercase C', uppercase P'').

In the Founding of the Katipunan section, the article says "Children of the Nation" (uppercase C', uppercase N''), with an unsupported editorial note saying "Gregorio Zaide translated as Highest and Most Respected Association of the Sons of the Country." (uppercase S, uppercase C) Other examples of variations -- some supported and some unsupported -- are present elsewhere in the article. I don't know about Zaide or other sources cited, but I see that this source says "Children of the Country", and this source says "Children of the Nation".

I suggest that one of the alternative translations be used consistently in the article and, in keeping with WP:DUE, that it be linked to a footnote explaining that various translators have translated the Tagalog word differently and citing WP:RS examples of specific alternative translations. I would have tried to do this, but I know that Zaide is an oft-cited Filipino historian and I don't presently have handy access to Zaide sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"First" republic?
This edit caught my eye and drew my attention to the assertion saying, "The crowning achievement of the Katipunan was the establishment of the first Philippine Republic." At a minimum, that needs rewording.; perhaps it needs removal from the section where it appears. Perhaps that section needs removal as off-topic for this article. The infobox contains the information that the Katipunan became extinct on May 10, 1897. The First Philippine Republic was established on January 23, 1899. The establishment of the First Philippine Republic (capital 'F') was not an achievement of the Katipunan.

Currently, this article seems to have some confusion involving the term First Philippine Republic. There is an article section headed First Filipino republic which, as I read it, is unrelated to the similarly named insurgent government established in 1899. The point of that section seems to be making is that the Katipunan established some form of republic as an insurgent government early on. I don't know where the 1896 date in that article section comes from, but hat point is made and supported by, among other sources,, which says that the Katipunan established a government with a constitution in 1892, and replaced that constitution in 1894. In the interest of minimizing confusion with the government established in 1899 and known as the "First Philippine Republic", I suggest that the use of the word "First" be avoided in the "First Filipino republic" section header; Perhaps "Katipunan republics" or "Katipunan governments"??

I don't have time to look at this in more detail right now; I may add more here when I do have more time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katipunan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101115193832/http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php?i=5&subcat=1 to http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/articles-on-c-n-a/article.php?i=5&subcat=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Katipunan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425093019/http://images.anipint87.multiply.com/attachment/0/R4mtyQoKCEIAAEC0CpY1/Chapter%208.doc?nmid=77355719 to http://images.anipint87.multiply.com/attachment/0/R4mtyQoKCEIAAEC0CpY1/Chapter%208.doc?nmid=77355719
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090102222446/http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=PRR004000014 to http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=PRR004000014

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Delegates sent to Japan to make a deal with Emperor Meiji?
I see some sources saying this happened in May 1896 and some sources (e.g., this one) saying that they thought about it but didn't do it in the end, instead just tried to do a deal with Japanese representatives in the Philippines (e.g., the captain of the Kongo). The second version seems a lot more likely as this was when the Kongo was docked in Manila. I think also there's a bit of confusion between the deal they tried to do in May 1896 and the latter attempt at arms smuggling from Japan during 1898-99. FOARP (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)