Talk:Philippine Military Academy

Verifiability
A section in this article has a verifiability and inaccuracy issue. These are the paragraphs being disputed:

"The Philippine Military Academy traces its history back to the Academia Militar which was established on October 25, 1898 at Malolos, Bulacan. General Antonio Luna, Secretary of War for the young Philippine Republic was commissioned to organize a cohesive standing army. He realized that an Officer Corps had to be trained in order to attain his goal. He recruited the best of the former Spanish "Guardia Civil" (Army) Officers to be the members of the faculty of the institution, Academia Militar."

"The Academia was established by General Emilio Aguinaldo, the first president of the young Philippine republic. The school was meant as a training ground for future officers of the armed forces. Its first superintendent was (Spanish) Captain Manuel Bernal Sityar, Jr. The Acad.emia Militar was forced to close down on January 20, 1899, however, as hostilities broke out between the Americans and Filipinos."

TO WIT: -- There are no NOR references given or even inline citations to back-up this assertion. -- In the Infobox there is no mention of Academia Militar under former names; Date established is February 17, 1905. The Academia Militar was established November 1, 1898. --PMA was established by the U.S. backed Commonwealth government (December 21, 1936, Commonwealth Act No. 1 ). The Academia Militar was activated by the Philippine Revolutionary government November 1, 1898. -- Therefore, unless proven through a verifiable third party source (NOR), the disputed section/paragraphs should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMilitaryExpert (talk • contribs) 03:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a supporting citation to the article, citing the About the Academy page on the PMA website. It seems clear that the PMA does trace its own origins back to Aguinaldo's Academia Militar academy. In my own opinion, there is serious question about whether or not such a historical connection exists in fact as well as in nationalistic sentiment. See a somewhat related discussion at Talk:Philippine Army. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Wtmitchell. Unfortunately, the PMA does not qualify as a reliable third party source under the NOR guidelines. Fact: The PMA started with the Officer's School, Philippine Constabulary on February 17, 1905 -- it is the truth and we can not allow falsehood, unverifiable, and baseless claims of connection to the Academia Militar. The two disputed paragraphs have to be deleted as per Wikipedia Verifiability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMilitaryExpert (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I've removed the tag from this page - you do not appear to need any administrative action here. If you want to get input from more editors, might I suggest you raise the issue at the appropriate WikiProject (listed at the top of the page)? Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  13:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Restored old version. Please refer to Proclamation No. 35 issued during the PMA's centennial last 1998 declaring 25 October as PMA foundation day. It's not just history now, but a matter of national policy. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi RioHondo. I have read the same Proclamation No. 35, as you know Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical tool for policy making because they are considered to be largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. Meaning, the President's proclamation does not have the force of law, unless authorized by Congress. If the congress passes an act based on the proclamation, then it becomes a law. Unfortunately, Proclamation No. 35 is a purely ceremonial act and is not a law, thus, not acceptable as a source and citation under Wikipedia's Verifiability rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMilitaryExpert (talk • contribs) 16:14, November 6, 2013‎


 * Regarding the scholarly research work done by Col. Cesar Pobre (Ret), PMA Class 1952, it is also not acceptable because it does not meet the requirements set by the Wikipedia NOR -- No Original Research -- Guidelines. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.


 * We will be removing the articles in question. We will restore the articles once you have presented an acceptable source(s) (refer to Verifiability guidelines). Kindly post your source(s) first at the talk page, wait for our reply to form a consensus -- this will prevent your account from being blocked or banned because of edit-warring. Good luck.


 * You know the PMA just celebrated its 115th Anniversary a couple of weeks ago. You can insist on July 4 as Philippine independence day but the practice have been to celebrate on June 12 since 1962 out of a simple proclamation changing the date. 2013 would have been the 15th year the PMA have been celebrating oct 25th instead of feb 17th, so good luck with your version.--RioHondo (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You have not presented reliable sources based on Verifiability and No Original Research (NOR) Guidelines of Wikipedia. A Proclamation can not supersede a LAW or a Republic Act like Commonwealth Act No. 1. Traditions and dates are not valid grounds for article inclusion. You have not presented any article that is based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Other than that, Proclamation No. 35 is all about changing the founding date of PMA -- it is not a law, it is merely a "ceremonial" change of date. Unfortunately, due to your incivility and repeated reverts, with a heavy heart we have no choice but to elevate this matter and cite you for edit-warring. TheMilitaryExpert (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to RioHondo -- you seem to have a misapprehension re July 4 vs. June 12 for the anniversary date celebrated as Independence Day in the Philippines. President Macapagal's Presidential Proclamation No. 28 just proclaimed Tuesday, June 12, 1962 as a one-time special holiday. The Independence Day holiday was moved in 1964 by Republic Act No. 4166. See the Independence Day (Philippines) article and sources cited there for more info about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note to TheMilitaryExpert re Presidential proclamations being "considered to be largely ceremonial" -- Chapter 2 Section 4 of the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines reads:


 * It is ceremonial in nature. Why? A decree/executive order is merely the President stating that a certain Act should be used to solve a certain issue in governance -- meaning a decree merely "assigns" the ACT (Law) to be used. Non-lawyers always misunderstand this and it is really simple, a decree/executive order is NOT a law, it is an INSTRUCTION to attach a certain ACT to solve a certain problem. Again, the issue here is content that is not Verifiable; Third-party sources; and No Original Research. WIKIPEDIA: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. The Military Expert 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMilitaryExpert (talk • contribs)


 * Re the Executive Orders and the force thereof, Section 2 reads:


 * Re whether the President has the authority to change statutory holidays and whether or not such a change has the force of law, Chapter 7 Section 26 says


 * What PP35 s.1998 did was to proclaim October 25 of every year as the Foundation Day of the Philippine Military Academy. In the course of doing this, the President explicitly offered the following as one reason underpinning the change:


 * See and.


 * From WIKIPEDIA: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery. Your source fails verification, it is NOT a third-party he is an alumni of PMA. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. Therefore, the flawed content will be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMilitaryExpert (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The solidity of the research cited by the President or the validity of the Presidential reasoning behind the change is not at issue here. It appears to me that it is very clear that the President did make the change, that he did have the authority to do so, and that he did so in part for his stated reason quoted above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get too deeply involved in a discussion about this as my interest level isn't very high and I have other demands on my time. However, I do want to clarify that I am coming at this from an angle different from other contributors to this discussion. It seems to me that this article might assert that former president Estrada, acting in his official capacity as President, asserted what I've quoted from PP35 above. It seems to me that that information has sufficient weight in relation to this topic to be included in this article. I suspect that there might be sources out there making contrary assertions (and I may or may not have some info about that, but I don't have time to put the info together just now). It seems to me that WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV) is the pertinent policy here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've dug around a bit more on this, and I see that the Home > About the Academy page of the PMA website says, in part, "The Philippine Military Academy began on October 25, 1898 with the establishment of the Academia Militar in Malolos, Bulacan by virtue of a decree issued by the first president of the young Philippine Republic, General Emilio Aguinaldo." This would sufficiently and reliably support an assertion that the PMA, as a matter of institutional perception about its own history, traces its roots back to the Academia Militar. My own understanding is that
 * The Academia Militair existed (as described here and elsewhere) from October 1898 to January 1899 as a training institution for the Philippine Revolutionary Army (PRA), as reconstituted after Aguinaldo's return from exile in Hong Kong.
 * Shortly after the closing of the Academia Militair, armed conflict erupted between the PRA forces and U.S. forces, escalating quickly into the Philippine-American War.
 * During that war and in its aftermath, the Philippine Scouts (PS) and the Philippine Constabulary (PC) organizations appeared, and saw armed combat against PRA forces.
 * The PS and PC are predecessor organizations of the present-day Philippine Army.
 * The PRA is not a predecessor organization of the present-day Philippine Army.
 * However, regardless of the above, it also appears to me that an assertion that the PMA, as a matter of institutional perception about its own history, traces its roots back to the Academia Militar is reliably supportable, and that such an assertion has sufficient topical weight to appear in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification Requested
What is the question? Editors were requested to comment on an RFC. I see that there is some argument about historical succession and the history of the academy, but am not sure what is the issue on which WP:CONSENSUS is being requested. Can someone please restate this RFC in terms of a question with Support and Oppose, or some other similar form? If I see something that I can !vote on, I may reply. As it is, this appears to be a poorly formed but revisable RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure it revolves around the organization claiming its roots trace all the way back to the the Academia Militar and 1898 civil war—and not the December 21, 1936 date of it's physical founding by the commonwealth. Given the dearth of reliable sourcing on the matter, this is a dubious statement at best.  (I will be checking the citations/sources given in the next few days, and will have a better grasp on the reliability of what is actually given here later.)


 * However, that said, the organization (PRA) claims this connection, a claim sourced to it's own webpage (although a reliable third party source would be better). Therefore, as per Wtmitchell, I think, for the moment, it is prudent to mention in the article itself the claim that it was founded and is a direct descendant of the AM, but the details of such a claim, until reliably sourced by a third party, should be entirely removed (sooner rather than later).  These can be added later if such a third party source exists, or the claim can be removed if such sources are not forthcoming, as there are no emergencies in Wikipedia.


 * Also, the article is in need of a thorough copy edit, and I will be glad to help out with that and any re-write that might be necessary when a consensus regarding the content is reached. I will check back in a week to see what's developing, until then, good luck.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree about removing info about the fact of the claim if reliable sources supporting the truth of the claim cannot be found. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. There's an exception in there for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, and an argument could be made that this claim is exceptional. To my mind, though, this claim is no more exceptional than (and is probably somewhat related to) the claim by the RP Government that Emilio Aguinaldo, by virtue of his presidency of the Malolos Republic, was the first President of the Philippines (see, , etc.) -- which claim is reported by WP in the List of Presidents of the Philippines article and elsewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Apples and oranges. The Malolos Republic was a constitutionally based government declared and witnessed (and easy enough to reference).  However, the claims on the website for the academy are just that, claims.  There is no proof in the secondary sources, therefore, too suspect to include in an article which is striving to be reliable, although the fact that the claim is made is valid.  You still have to use common sense along with the consensus.  At WP:Self there is: "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.  All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors..." which, IMO, this fails on both counts.  Otherwise, some secondary source would have picked up on it in the last 113 years.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 05:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Re apples and oranges, it seems to me that the relavant histories are intertwined more closely than those two fruits are related botanically to one another.


 * Re the roots of the Republic of the Philippines as recognized by the Philippine government (summation of my understanding of the relevant history): The Katipunan as a revolutionary group under Bonifacio was succeeded by a revolutionary government proclaimed at the Tejeros Convention, with Aguinaldo as President. That government was effectively dissolved by the Pact of Biak-na-Bato and the revolution mostly put on hold, with Aguinaldo and others going into voluntary exile abroad. After being returned to the Philippines by the Americans during the Spanish-American War, Agunaldo restarted the revolution and proclaimed a Dictatorial Government, which was quickly recast as a Revolutionary Government, which was succeeded by the Malolos Republic. All of those "governments" were insurgent revolutionary governments which were not recognized by anyone outside their own membership. The Malolos Congress did produce a constitution (over Mabini's opposition, see info starting here) but, again, it was a constitution for an insurgent revolutionary government which was not recognized outside of its own membership. During the period of its brief existence, the Malolos Republic was governed by decree (per article 99 of the constitution -- see here). The Malolos Government officially came into existence on January 23, 1899 and, AFAICS, never really functioned as a civil government. From February 4, 1899 onwards it had an unrecognized de-jure existence but de-facto operated as the senior command for the Philippine Revolutionary Army during the Philippine-American War. Its existence came to a de-facto end on November 13, 1899, with Aguinaldo's shift to a Guerilla War strategy and to a de-jure end with Aguinaldo's acceptance of American authority on April 1, 1901. During this period, the Philippines was governed de-jure by an American military government established on August 14, 1898 and, from December 10, 1898 onwards, the Philippines was under U.S. Sovereignty. The Commonwealth of the Philippines was inaugurated on November 15, 1935, still under U.S. sovereignty. The Republic of the Philippines was recognized as in independent sovereign government on July 4, 1946. The RP Government recognizes Aguinaldo's period as head of the Malolos Government as the first Presidency of the Philippine Republic.
 * Re the PMA tracing its history back to the Academia Militar (summation of my understanding of the relevant history): During the aforementioned Tejeros Convention, the Ejercito en la Republica de la Filipina (Philippine Revolutionary Army, or PRA) was founded, and General Artemio Ricarte was designated as its first Captain General. on October 25, 1898 with the establishment of the Academia Militar in Malolos, Bulacan by virtue of a decree issued by Emilio Aguinaldo. At that time, Aguinaldo held the presidency of an insurgent revolutionary government. The Academia Militar existed up to 20 January 1899. The PRA could be said to have continued its existence de-jure under the insurgent Malolos Republic up until Aguinaldo's acceptance of American authority on April 1, 1901. It could be said to have had a de-facto existence up until the capture of Miguel Malvar on April 13, 1902. The Philippine Army was reborn under the Commonwealth of the Philippines with the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 1, approved on December 21, 1935. That law formally created the Philippine Military Academy (some might say "reestablished" instead of "created").


 * Personally, I don't really buy into either case of harkening back to the past, but I recognize that the Philippine Government does, as a matter of governmental policy, accept the first (I'm guessing that, as a government institution, the PMA agrees with that) and that the PMA, as a matter of institutional policy, accepts the second.


 * I also recognize that Wikipedia's editorial philosophy embraces VERIFIABILITY, not TRUTH, based on what reliable sources state to be true, not on what truths individual editors think they can verify. I also note that WP:SELFSOURCE (part of the WP content guideline on Identifying reliable sources says that self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves.


 * I also note that WP:DUE (part of the WP:NPOV policy) says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. ...". The PMA website states the view that PMA traces its roots back to Academia Militar (see ). If a contrary assertion supported by a source of similar prominence and reliability can be found, that contrary view ought to be included in the article and the supporting source cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Another edit and revert; more discussion

 * I have been reading claims that the PMA is part of the Academia Militar de Malolos and I do believe such claims are baseless and questionable. I agree with User:GenQuest and that the questionable portion be deleted, it will only be restored until reliably sourced by a third party.--Wiki Exterminator (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this edit.


 * Let me reclarify that this article does not assert that the PMA is part of the Academia Militar de Malolos (as you say above). What it says is that the PMA traces its own history back to the Academia Militar (I've inserted the word own there, and added that word into the article).
 * In support of this assertion, the article cites I've removed the Failed verification tag after that cite. That cited PMA web page says in part, "The Philippine Military Academy began on October 25, 1898 with the establishment of the Academia Militar in Malolos, Bulacan by virtue of a decree issued by the first president of the young Philippine Republic, General Emilio Aguinaldo." Perhaps this assertion by the PMA could be described more clearly in this article; perhaps it needs some clarification; perhaps the article ought to say something like "On its website, the PMA describes itself as having begun with ..."; perhaps the article ought to provide a clarifying footnote. Please discuss and/or offer suggestions here. Please do not edit war over this. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Since the claim itself is what is in question, a qualifier such as you suggest regarding their making the claim is acceptable, in my mind.  I could live with that, W.  Seems like the perfect compromise.  Thanks,  GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 05:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment. I would suggest creating subsections in the history portion for the three schools the PMA inherits its traditions from: Academia Militar, PC Officers School and PC Academy while explicitly stating in the lead section that the school inherits the traditions of ALL previous Philippine military schools. It worked for Poland's military academy, should work for us.:)--RioHondo (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not being familiar with the Poland situation, I'm not sure about that. I see this as a POV conflict. My understanding (call it a POV) is that the PMA did not grow out of the Academia Militar de Malolos; that that academia was associated with forces in armed conflict with the forces which grew into the AFP, and was not associated with the development of the current AFP. Another POV exists, and is apparently held by the PMA itself. The question of whether or not that other POV ought to be mentioned here is, I think, the question behind this discussion. I think that WP:DUE supports an argument for such a mention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just reading the biography of the first Chief of Staff of the AFP, General Jose delos Reyes, and i learned that earlier in his military career, prior to joining the Philippine Scouts and Philippine Constabulary, he too took part in the Philippine Revolutionary Army under General Aguinaldo and Gregorio del Pilar in his native Malolos. There were many more like him, los Veteranos de la Revolucion, who eventually allied with the US and served in the colonial government. Wasnt Commonwealth President Quezon himself a former aide de camp of Aguinaldo during the Philippine-American War? Im just saying the PA/AFP and PRA were connected in many ways, only few research have been done and our historians are only beginning to see history from the national POV, which is why you have this. But anyway, we'll make do with what we have for now. :)--RioHondo (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To My Fellow Wikipedians -- Let's Resolve This :)
I have come up with a draft copy edit for the disputed article. I invite all concerned to contribute so we can finally resolve this issue.

Proposed draft: (Subject to changes)

- Dispute and Conflicting Points of View

The Academia Militar de Malolos was founded on October 25, 1898 by the Philippine Revolutionary Army fighting the Americans. It was closed on Jan. 20, 1899 due to highly escalated tensions between the Filipinos and Americans.

Questions have been raised regarding the validity and veracity of the Philippine Military Academy's claim it traces its roots to the Academia Militar de Malolos. This claim is disputed because historically the PMA is known as the predecessor of the American established Officer's School of the Philippine Constabulary and the Philippine Constabulary Academy.

A third party study should be done before any claim can be sufficiently established or refuted. -

Note: I encourage everyone concerned to suggest changes. Again, I invite all to contribute so we can finally resolve this issue.--Wiki Exterminator (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for using the talkpage to raise your concerns. It's vital that you provide, or at least suggest, sources to support your proposed changes. However, your proposed text is mostly a commentary and a call for investigation, and therefore not appropriate for the article. Who raised the questions? Is there a source for this assertion? As it stands, it's just a statement of opinion. It might be right, but in that form it's not a plain statement of fact. "A third party study should be done before any claim can be sufficiently established or refuted" is a polemical statement, not a statement of fact. Calls for action of any kind don't belong in articles. Please look for sourcing to support a revision of the article, and then present a revised proposed wording based on the sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Shades of "TheMilitaryExpert". Internal sources alone do not support those statements. See Treaty of Paris (1898) and Philippine-American War. The establishment of the Academia Militar preceded these two when the First Philippine Republic enjoyed brief independence as a result of PRA-US victory during the Philippine Revolution and Spanish-American War. Fighting between Filipinos and Americans only took place from February 1899 after America showed its real intention of annexing the islands through the treaty. You may have forgotten this, but just setting the records straight.--RioHondo (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, and remarkably similar in all respects to the November discussion.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)\

I've just happened to be adding some missing citations in another article, and that relates to this. See Philippine Constabulary. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Browsing around, I came across this 2003 thesis which says on page 35 of the PDF, "General Delos Santos, a former Commanding General of the Philippine Army, commented that 'PMA has been patterned after West Point and we are very proud in saying that PMA is the West Point in Asia [...], apparently speaking of remarks by Jaime de los Santos at a 2002 PMA Stakeholders’ Conference event. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Former names
I have removed the entry reading "Academia Militar de Malolos (1898–1899 )" from the list of former names. Such an institution was established but the current PMA has no direct connection with that former organization. See the History section of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

under grad
how can i join military im only grade 10 graduate 112.209.178.195 (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay lang po ba kahit may sungki?
Like ung ngipin po na hindi pantay 122.2.75.20 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * . Maybe, I guess, but that is not a question to ask here. For more info, see the second paragraph here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)