Talk:Moro Rebellion

Neologism
Bangsamoro appears to be a Neologism. I am not finding any books older than the last 35 years that use the term/name. Even this self published book only dates to 1985: This event ended in 1913. While it may have some context for background sections in other articles, or mentioned in an aftermath section in this article. Writing about the conflict itself or background to the conflict which is the subject of this article, should not use the term Bangsamoro IMHO. In a way it is attempting to reframe history and interject a non-neutral POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1999:
 * 1993:
 * Most of the uses in the article are in references. It's appropriate there.  There are two uses in the article text.  The first specifically refers to "current" Moslem leaders and is appropriate.  I would change the second, though — the term seems to come from the more recent trend to use non-English terms in English (Mumbai for Bombay comes to mind), and it seems that Moros is more appropriate in that context.  I am more concerned with the use of "national liberation" in a conflict that is 400 years old.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The word is modern, used as a catch-all term to denote the former territories of the Sultanate of Sulu, the Sultanate of Maguindanao, and the several independent "sultanates" of the Maranao. In reality, the "rebellion" was not a single event, nor were the different Moro groups united. I do agree that the first use might be acceptable (since it specifies current Moro leaders), the second usage (Moro Rebellion) is definitely not. There is no such region as "Bangsamoro" back then. You had territories of each different Sultanate, all independent from each other.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  03:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is the point of view of modern Moros even emphasized in the background section? Shouldn't it be moved to the "Further Rebellions" section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(New comment)
In addition, the word "sacopy" may occur as a single source 'hapax legomena' in the 1973 book by Donald Smythe "Guerrilla Warrior: The Early Life of John J. Pershing" I'm finding it hard to tease any other sources out of search engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE80:2AA0:F521:2851:5576:37A9 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Neologism, again

 * This article was listed at the CatCategory:Articles with neologism issues as the term 'Bangsamoro' is used to describe the Moro territory at the time of the rebellion. My edits to rectify this were reverted, with the explanation there are 4K current Ghit for "Bangsamoro" and Not a neologism, nor archaic, in current official use.
 * Isn’t that the point of the objection above, that 'Bangsamoro' is a modern term that is inapplicable to the situation at the turn of the last century? There is no reply to the comments above: So, do any of the 4K current Ghits support the use of the term in the context of the 1899-1913 rebellion? And if so, wouldn’t it be a good idea to add them in support? Otherwise, it would be better, in the interests of NPOV, to use neutral phrasing like 'Moro nation', and 'Moro territory' (in fact, I'm inclined to think it'd be a good idea anyway...). Moonraker12 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I could look again, but it's my recollection that only a handful of the Ghits I looked out used the term in relation to the Moro rebellion, and that was in the context of historically connecting it to the more current Moro conflict. If the objection was that the term is anachronistic to use for the Moro rebellion -- as opposed to being a "neologism" -- then I suppose that's a legitimate complaint.  Obviously if the commentary here supports the removal of "Bangsamoro" in this context, I'll go along with the consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: I’ve put a ‘dubious’ tag on the first instance (to link the discussion here), and a citation request on the second, per the discussion above. We can see how it goes... Moonraker12 (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Not "directly involved"!?
The quote says that pershing himself said "it was not pleasant to have to take such measures", who whence is there a doubt that he was directly involved? Since it happened systematically with his command and never denied but rather admitted it without regrets...

The "sources" for suppossed "historians" are anti-trump media hit pieces from 2018, not academic publications or reviews. I get wanting to attack trump but this is a discussion about colonial history not 2018 electoral politics. 186.139.111.142 (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary discussion
@Beyond My Ken: I saw you have expanded the sentence US soldiers buried pigs with the bodies of juramentados according to American soldier J. R. McKey. added by Yaujj13 to a separate section "Controversy" according to references provided by him. But I think these sentence and references should have been merged with the section "Tactics" existed before. Please consider this suggestion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and duplicate material should be removed (but not new sources). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources should be kept, but I think the content you expanded from these new sources gives an undue weight on this controversy instead the tactics itself. I think this kind of content should be included only in quotes of sources or notes, like in John J. Pershing. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The former "Controversy" section has been merged into the existing "Tactics" section, but NmWTfs85lXusaybq continues to believe that it is unbalanced. He added a "weight" tag to the section, but I removed it, as this discussion is already ongoing to determine whether there is a WP:UNDUE problem with the additional material, which NmWTfs85lXusaybq has been attempting to remove since it was first added. (NmWTfs85lXusaybq subsequently restored the tag.) I do not believe that there is a weight problem:


 * The matter of the events isn't settled by the statement from Pershing (whom I admire, and whose article I have been involved in shaping). That is, of course, important (which is why I had it last, not first, as NmWTfs85lXusaybq prefers it), but it's not the determinative factor, because the statement could well be self-serving on Pershing's part. That's why the additional information is valuable, as claims made by others involved, and should be included.
 * The additional material is a matter of a three sentences, all of which are sourced. And all of which are balanced in that they present claims, but also state that Pershing was probably not personally responsible -- except for the bit about bringing a pig's skull to a meeting (which is sourced to an MIT historian).
 * Considering that the article is currently 67,506 bytes long, the 679 bytes that NmWTfs85lXusaybq wants removed -- 1% of the article -- can hardly be said to be undue.

This seems to me to be a situation which an editor with a clear POV (whatever that is) cannot abide anything negative about a subject that's important to them, and is willing to enter into WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in order to achieve their goals. I believe that an objective observer would say that the sourced information should stay in the article, and NmWTfs85lXusaybq's tag -- representing their personal opinion and not, at this point, consensus -- should be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's inappropriate for Beyond My Ken to accuse me of a clear POV that I cannot abide anything negative about Pershing, which is not assuming good faith.
 * Beyond My Ken expanded the material US soldiers buried pigs with the bodies of juramentados according to American soldier J. R. McKey added by Yaujj13 to a detailed material of this controversy. It's fine for me to keep these materials as a separate section. That's what I did in Special:Diff/1149971699, reverted by Beyond My Ken later.
 * Beyond My Ken insisted on putting his material under "Conflict" section. But it's WP:UNDUE to put the details of this controversy under "Tactics" section. The "Tactics" section under "Conflict" should only mention the tactics themselves.
 * NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
 * The material above Beyond My Ken's uses the expression "historians" and "soldiers" without specification. But in Beyond My Ken's material, the specific soldier and historians are mentioned, as well as a conspiracy theory from Donald Trump which is the information not pertinent to the section subject "Tactics". That results in an undue and messy structure and his material needs a rewrite. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * NmWTfs85lXusaybq's statement is inaccurate. I did not "insist", when NmWTfs85lXusaybq posted here that the material I had put in a "Controversy" (not "Conflict") section should be merged into the "Tactics" section (see above, top of thread), I immediate agreed, and moved it.  The only reason I hadn't put it there before was that I hadn't noticed there was such a section.  TACTICS is the correct placement, since all the material (including the Trump material) is about the actual or fantasized tactics used to make the guerillas lose status with the people, thus reducing their support. (Recall Mao's aphorism that "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." With no support from the people, the guerilla cannot survive.)  Thus the tactical decision to insult the guerilla's religious beliefs by bringing them into contact with dead swine.As for ONUS, yes, of course, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, but the arguments I put forward above for why these three sentences are  not UNDUE, removes any policy-based reason for this material to be rejected.  All that is left is that NmWTfs85lXusaybq doesn't like it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that NmWTfs85lXusaybq now says "It's fine for me to keep these materials as a separate section", but that's exactly what I did originally, and it was NmWTfs85lXusaybq who started this very thread by asking for the material to be merged into "Tactics", which I agreed to. Rather than castigate my actions, it would be better if NmWTfs85lXusaybq would explain why their position has changed 180 degrees, and why he is as adamant about this new position as they were about their original one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't misinterpret my words. I said It's fine for me to keep these materials as a separate section. That's what I did in Special:Diff/1149971699, reverted by Beyond My Ken later. It's fine for me if Beyond My Ken's material was put out of "Conflict" section. But if he insists on putting his material under "Conflict" section, it's better to merge it with "Tactics" section. Besides that, his material needs a rewrite to maintain the due structure of "Tactics" section. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken has a prejudice against me. He may see me as a far-right who cannot abide anything negative about Pershing. He thought I don't like it which I never said. I never insist on removing all of his material. But it needs to be rewritten to maintain the due structure of "Tactics" section. I always work hard to make articles better. As he said, he hadn't noticed there was such a section. It seems that he doesn't care about the structure of this article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken should realize the difference between the section "Tactics" and section "Controversy". In the section "Controversy", you can mention all controversies related to Moro Rebellion which could include the conspiracy theory from Donald Trump. But in the section "Tactics", you should only include the fact about which tactics Pershing did use. If there's any dispute, you should only keep the consensus among historians. You can put the detailed material in notes or quotes of references. That's the style suitable for an encyclopedia, just like that of the article John J. Pershing. You can't just put your material together without any modification. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no "prejudice" against NmWTfs85lXusaybq; I have never interacted with them before this disagreement. I have no idea what NmWTfs85lXusaybq's personal political views are, I merely see in their adamant campaign to remove this small amount of sourced and relevant material signs of a POV operating. I ask NmWTfs85lXusaybq to not ping me by using the Wikilinked form of my username constantly in this discussion - I get a notice every time they do this which is annoying.  I am aware this discussion exists and do not need to be pinged to it constantly.As for NmWTfs85lXusaybq suggested change, for all the reason I've written above, I do not believe it is necessary or justified.I hope not to comment here again, and await the comments of other editors to determine consensus in this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, Beyond My Ken is charging me of meatpuppets by using the word "them" and "their" to refer me. It interferes with people reading my suggestion. He doesn't assume good faith and has a prejudice against me. He has no evidence to support his charge against me, but uses this charge to affect anyone who may agree with my suggestion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My use of "them" and "their" is singular, as I am not aware of NmWTfs85lXusaybq's gender. (In fact returns "they".)  There was no intent on my part to imply sockpuppetry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, I am striking out my comments regarding POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken did refer me before by the word "he" in sentences like He added a "weight" tag to the section, but I removed it and why their position has changed 180 degrees, and why he is as adamant about this new position as they were about their original one. I'm confused if he is really unaware of my gender. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant, please get back to the topic. –Vipz (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that Beyond My Ken has stricken out his comments regarding the POV charge against me. I'm striking out some of my comments as well. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken was trying to use his charge of POV to reject any suggestion from me. Now that he has stricken out his comments regarding POV, let's get back to the topic. I'm adding inline tags to his material to point out the problem in his expanded material from Yaujj13's sourcing. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The original material provided with three sources is US soldiers buried pigs with the bodies of juramentados according to American soldier J. R. McKey. The name "McKey" is mentioned only in one of the sources. This material is duplicate with Letters and memoirs from soldiers describing events similar to this do not have credible evidence of Pershing's having been personally involved from section "Tactics". Only the sources should be left and merged into "Tactics" section.
 * On the contrary, Beyond My Ken was unaware of section "Tactics" as he said and expanded this material according to only one of these sources. I doubt if he has read the other two sources. His material is duplicate and overly detailed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have fully protected the article for two weeks to stop the edit warring. The principles at WP:DR must be followed. Ask for a third opinion and try a wikiproject. After that, if needed, start an WP:RFC. Further edit warring will result in blocks. I will watch this page and will remove the protection if there are signs that WP:EW will be respected. Any other admin of course is welcome to alter the protection if I'm not around. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just to note that NmWTfs85lXusaybq requested a third opinion, which is fine by me, as I was just heading there myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken's statement is inaccurate. I'm making a constructive rewrite of his material which has not been done before. That's not edit warring. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggested trimming
Beyond My Ken's material is partly duplicate with the original material in the "Tactics" section. That's why his material is overly detailed about tactics and needs a rewrite.
 * American soldier J. R. McKey claimed in 1941 that U.S. soldiers during Pershing's governorship buried bleeding pigs with the bodies of juramentados in public funerals, because of the Muslim disgust for swine, but McKey did not claim that Pershing was aware of these actions. can be fully summarized by original material Letters and memoirs from soldiers describing events similar to this do not have credible evidence of Pershing's having been personally involved.
 * U.S. soldiers during Pershing's governorship buried bleeding pigs with the bodies of juramentados in public funerals is duplicate with The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig
 * because of the Muslim disgust for swine is duplicate with the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins
 * McKey did not claim that Pershing was aware of these actions is duplicate with Letters and memoirs from soldiers describing events similar to this do not have credible evidence of Pershing's having been personally involved
 * However, there is no evidence for the claim made by Donald Trump in 2016 that Pershing executed Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pig's blood. is only a conspiracy theory mentioned by Donald Trump and provides no further information about tactics which has been used. It should be included in quotes instead of materials.


 * The material of "Tactics" should be modified as follows:

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Chronological arrangement
I continue to believe that the material is not in any way undue, and suggest that it would be best if the section were organized more or less chronologically, in this manner:

Tactics

In 1927, some 14 years after Pershing's governership, the Chicago Tribune published a claim that U.S. soldiers during Pershing's term of office buried bleeding pigs with the bodies of juramentados in public funerals, because of the Muslim disgust for swine. This claim was repeated in 1941 in a letter to Time magazine by J. R. McKey an American soldier.

Pershing dealt with this incident in his memoir My Life Before the World War, 1860–1917, which he worked on between 1924 and 1937, but which was not published until 2013. In it, he wrote:

"[The] juramentado attacks were materially reduced in number by a practice the army had already adopted, one that the Mohammadans held in abhorrence. The bodies were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig. It was not pleasant to have to take such measures but the prospect of going to hell instead of heaven sometimes deterred the would-be assassins."

Though this treatment was inflicted on captured juramentado, historians do not believe that Pershing was directly involved with such incidents, or that he personally gave such orders to his subordinates. Letters and memoirs from soldiers describing events similar to this do not have credible evidence of Pershing's having been personally involved. However, Christopher Capozzola, a history professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reported that Pershing supposedly brought a pig’s head to a ceasefire negotiation with a Muslim leader. In 2016, then-President Donald Trump made the claim that Pershing executed Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pig's blood, but historians find no evidence for this.

I believe this is a clean, efficient way to deal with the sources and their information in a manner which is not undue or overly long. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, that's a pretty clean and elegant write-up, but I don't know--it's really part of the aftermath, or "legacy" if you will--then again you could call it tactical. I can see both ways. But what I would suggest that if this is the only "tactical" item, then the title of that section should be different, more focused. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Tactics" wasn't my choice of title, the statement by Pershing was already in the article under that sub-title when I added additional information elsewhere under the title "Controversy", being unaware of the existence of the "Tactics" section. It was only when it was requested by NmWTfs85lXusaybq that the two sections be combined (see the overarching title of this thread) that I joined them together.My position is that (1) this material should all be together and (2) that it is in no way UNDUE, as I think the semi-chronological organization of the material just above makes clear.  As for what title it should be under, or whether it should be integrated into another section, I'm more or less neutral about that (a "more focused" section sub-title would certainly be fine with me), as long as the material remains together and is not bowdlerized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My position is that (1) this section should be kept the organization by credibility of tactics rather than by chronology. (2) BMK's material is overly detailed (if you don't call that UNDUE) and needs a trimming, like in my suggestion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much a bare-bones description: (1) The origin of the claim, (2) Pershing's response to the claim, (3) scholarly response to the claim, (4) Connection to Trump's claim. Each has a mere sentence or two.  No trimming is needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. BMK has no evidence if Pershing's memoir is meant to deal with the claim published on Chicago Tribune, according to his sources. Similarly, BMK doesn't know if Chicago Tribune is really the origin of the claim.
 * BMK misplaced the original material Letters and memoirs from soldiers describing events similar to this do not have credible evidence of Pershing's having been personally involved in the 3rd part of his proposal. However, it's not a scholarly response to the original claim, but a summary of the original claim, which should have been put in the 1st part of his proposal.
 * BMK's proposal is not a clean write-up but a compromise for his semi-chronological material which needs a trimming. This section isn't about the investigation of Pershing's tactics, but the credible tactics during Pershing's governor term. It should be organized by credibility of tactics, like that in original material before, rather than by chronology.
 * NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * From my opinion, this section isn't about the investigation of tactics used by Pershing. It's about the tactics themselves during Pershing's governor term. You should organize tactics by credibility rather than organizing claims by chronology. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your arrangement is still a mess structurally. How do you know when Christopher Capozzola made his report? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read the "Reforms" section above under "Conflict" section? Its first sentence is Pershing enacted the following reforms during his tenure as governor. As I said, it seems that you don't care about the structure of this article. As you sure you want to settle for your material by chronological arrangement? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I find all this very hard to follow (and please leave out the personal attacks on BMK). I think I'm fine with your "Tactics: after"--but where has Trump gone? User:Beyond My Ken, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry about my words. I have commented out some of my sentences which you may think as personal attacks, but I really think his solution shows unconcern about the structure of this article.
 * As you said, A conspiracy theory is worth mentioning if secondary sources make it so, and that's what happened here. That's why I include only this conspiracy theory in this section "Tactics".
 * The conspiracy theory may be original from someone else, while just promoted by Trump publicly. From references you provided on User_talk:Drmies, there's no evidence that Trump is the origin of this conspiracy theory. Can you provide more evidences?
 * In my opinion, it's better to put this kind of material under a section of an article about Trump's controversy and use hatnotes to link it here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion copied from elsewhere
''The following discussion took place on User talk:Drmies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)''


 * Beyond My Ken's statement is inaccurate. I'm making a constructive rewrite of his material which has not been done before. That's not edit warring. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm I just see you removing content. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of his material has been summarized by original material and the third sentence provides no further information. So, I had to remove both of them. The second sentence can be rewritten and summarized by the material I provided, which has not been done in any of substantive contributions on Moro Rebellion made by Beyond My Ken and I. I think this kind of edit is constructive.
 * For more information, please read my suggestion for modification with the highlight difference on Talk:Moro_Rebellion. Beyond My Ken simply ignores all my suggestions by a POV charge against me without assuming good faith. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not against trimming that section in the way you suggested; I am opposed to erasing Trump from the article altogether. Putting that under "popular culture" is not the most elegant way of handling it; I'm sure a better solution can be found. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. From my understanding, you're fine with the way of trimming the first sentence of his material and replace the second sentence to the summarized material rewritten by me. Your only concern is the removal of the third sentence. Putting that into a quote could be a good option. If you're still not fine with this, I will try to come up with another option later.
 * The conspiracy theory mentioned by Donald Trump has been included in references of Moro Rebellion and John J. Pershing. But both of them didn't included that in their materials. I think conspiracy theorists always provide different kinds of conspiracy theories which are not worth mentioning. Denying a conspiracy theory can't provide any further information. It's not necessary for an article about history to include the denial of a conspiracy theory as material. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm putting the last sentence mentioning Trump into a quote for your concern. Talk:Moro_Rebellion is asking for third opinions. Could you provide a third opinion on that talk page? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A conspiracy theory is worth mentioning if secondary sources make it so, and that's what happened here. Military Times ran it (from the wire, I guess), Foreign Affairs devoted a lengthy article to it, and here is a monograph--published by Springer, so YMMV, but still. I find references in JSTOR too; see this report. So, if the burden, via FRINGE, is that reliable sources discuss the ridiculous ideas of someone, then that burden is met here. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, let's keep that sentence in material. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated my suggestion on Talk:Moro_Rebellion. Are you fine with that now? Please check it again and leave your opinion there. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

End of copied discussion

Further discussion
@Drmies: I have formatted this discussion by subsections which could help you follow it. I notice you mentioned Putting that under "popular culture" is not the most elegant way of handling it; I'm sure a better solution can be found. I think the conspiracy theory about Pershing could be put into List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump as well. What do you think? NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I meant "better solution" in the article also. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Giving that this section is a subsection of "Governorship of John J. Pershing (1909–1913)" and is only about Tactics, it should not be organized chronologically by claims and reports, like in BMK's proposal. Besides that, the people who made these claims, like Christopher Capozzola or Trump, could be omitted or summarized by words like "historians" or "soldiers" in original material, because of absence of evidence about the origin of these similar claims. However, if you insist on mentioning Trump in material, I'm fine with it. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, this section was originally organized by credibility of claims about tactics, before BMK moved his material here. The descriptions of tactics are successively from Pershing's autobiography, consensus of historians and memoirs from soldiers. BMK's organization by chronology disrupts this order. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

At this time, I will fully accept Drmies's advice of keeping Trump related material to make the suggested trimming a current consensus. Any further discussion could be made to form a new consensus. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Start date of February 4, 1899
That refers to Battle of Manila (1899). Of course Manila is not in Moroland. Based on this article, the "rebellion" began on March 9, 1902. I don't think the Moros were taking orders from Aguinaldo who was captured a year before, or even from Miguel Malvar, who surrendered a month later on April 16, 1902. First Philippine Republic forces in Mindanao surrendered on March 27, 1901, well before the Moros rebelled. I suppose this should be treated differently from the Philippine–American War which has a well defined start date of February 4, 1899, and ended at various times, all centered on events in involving non-Moros outside Mindanao. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)