Talk:Philippine Revolution

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 14nissanaltimas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Result info in the infobox, etc.
The infobox says




 * Result ||Philippines Victory
 * ||Expulsion of the Spanish colonial government. Establishment of the First Philippine Republic and Beginning of the Philippine-American War.
 * }
 * ||Expulsion of the Spanish colonial government. Establishment of the First Philippine Republic and Beginning of the Philippine-American War.
 * }

This distorts history, at least as I understand the relevant history. The expulsion of the Spanish government came about because of the Treaty of Paris (1898) which ended the Spanish-American War. The First Philippine Republic was an insurgent government which did not mature into an independent national government.

Thinking about Philippines Victory, also listed as a result, I realized that I don't know much at all about military engagements between Spanish forces and Philippines revolutionaries subsequent to Aguinaldo returning from exile in Hong Kong to resume the revolution. A quick look in some books I have handy didn't enlighten me, and this article doesn't appear to contain any info about that (and it probably should). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If I remember my Filipino history class. The Spanish were already verge of defeat. They Only held Intramuros until the Treaty of Paris was signed. The treaty transferred control of Intramuros to the American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.39.198 (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an addition to my previous post. No the First Philippine Republic was already an establish government unfortunately it wasn't recognized by foreign powers for obvious reason. It had its own constitution and flag Malolos Constitution. Hpilippine history is full of problems.. In the America it is know Philippine Insurgency, but to Filipinos it was a war. I read somewhere the U.S. Library of Congress already reclassified the insurrection as a war. unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.39.19:8 (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you're right about the reclassification as a war. Here's the scoop from the Filipino side:

- Filipinos want independence from Spain. U.S. say's they'll back insurgence. Spanish are defeated in Philippines. U.S. double crosses the Filipinos and instead of recognizing them as an independent nation, takes them over as a territory, leaving them in no better position than they were with the spanish. Fifty years later, Philippines is granted independence. U.S. was an imperialist nation at that time. (1900.) --71.214.221.164 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding nomenclature, although Americans have historically used the term "the Philippine Insurrection," Filipinos and an increasing number of American historians refer to these hostilities as the Philippine-American War (1899-1902), and in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term. See http://web.archive.org/web/20080330004538/http://manila.usembassy.gov/wwwhjusm.html.
 * Regarding the assertion, "U.S. say's they'll back insurgence", see History of the Philippines (1898–1946) and supporting sources cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Criollo insurgencies section
I've reverted part of this edit, changing "mis-understood the conflict in Quiapo" back to "mistook the fireworks of Auiapo". Both versions lack cited supporting sources, but I don't understand the change. What conflict in Quiapo? I had taken the previously mentioned fireworks to be in celebration of (as the section says, "Novales declared the independence of the Philippines from Spain and crowned himself Emperor of the Philippines."

Who the heck is Novales, anyhow? This article makes no other mention of him. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(added) Oh. Googling around, I see some info on this here. I don't have time to fiddle with this right now. If nobody else improves this, perhaps I'll come back and do it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Boracay Bill,

I am not familiar with Wikipedia interface and have no time to learn them but I believe I was involved in most of the contents of this article including the Criollo Insurgencies, which I initially wrote as Creole Insurgencies as termed by the original source. My source for these informations is the book "A Question of Heroes" written by the late Nick Joaquin. Nick Joaquin based this book on first hand accounts of such persons as Sinibaldo de Mas, Manuel Artigas, Apolinario Mabini, Jose Rizal - personalities who lived through the 1800s.

Ventada de Manila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventada de Manila (talk • contribs) 05:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Eight provinces
The list currently reads Manila, Bulacan, Cavite, Pampanga, Tarlac, Laguna, Batangas, and Nueva Ecija, after this edit replaced Bataan with Tarlac. I'm not really clear on the geography, either now or in 1896 or on the details of the development of the revolution, but I see that, in a section headed "The Revolution Spreads", the cited supporting source cited mentions I've tagged this failed verification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pasig, Pandakan, Pateros, Tagig, Kalookan, San Pedro Makati, Mariquina in Manila
 * Kawit, General Trias, Noveleta in Cavite
 * San Mateo, Montalban (now Rodriguez) in Rizal

Disputed section: Rise of Filipino nationalism
I've placed a disputed tag in this section, which is also tagged as unreferenced. This section is vague on the timeline of the rise of nationalism, but gives the impression that it is rooted in relatively recent times. The Philippine revolts against Spain article paints a contrary picture. Teodoro Agoncillo, in History of the Filipino People, says, " Lapulapu of Mactan (1521) and Dagami of Cebu (1567) were among the first Filipinos to refuse to bow under Spanish yoke." It looks to me as if this section needs to be rewritten (citing some supporting sources) or expunged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Revolts against Spain does not necessarily mean it is nationalistic or national in scope. The earlier revolts that you refer to did not result to Filipino nationalism. Lapu-Lapu's battle against Magellan was an effort to protect the kingdom of Mactan and did not result to Filipino nationalism. Same Dagohoy (longest revolt against Spain) who was protecting his noble rights and did not result to Filipino nationalism. The end result of Filipino nationalism is the birth of a nation, that is on June 12, 1898 when Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed independence. Given the effect (that is the First Phiippine Republic), historians can trace the events how everything began. Majority of historians trace the rise of Filipino nationalism to the execution of GomBurZa (Mariano Gomez-Jose Burgos-Jacinto Zamora). Padre Jose Burgos is officially recognized by the Philippine government as the "father of Filipino nationalism". The government did not give this title to Lapu-Lapu or Sulayman who were among the first to resist Spanish rule. Before GomBurZa, the population of the Philippines were referred to as Indio, Mestizo, Criollo, Peninsulares, Sangley. Filipino Nationalism is thus a recent event. Nick Joaquin goes even further and trace Filipino Nationalism to Luis Rodriguez Varela. But no historian has ever traced Filipino Nationalism beyond that. In Agoncillo's book (History of the Filipino People), his chapter on "revolts against Spain" does not claim Filipino nationalism was already there way before the Spaniards came. It simply states and he said so himself that revolts began at the very onslaught of Spanish rule but were not national in scope. No other province participated and no Filipino nation was was ever conceived in this early revolts.

Teodoro Agoncillo's book does not mention the story of the rise of Filipino nationalism as most other history books does. Among the circle of Filipino historians, Agoncillo is a well respected person but considered radical and sometimes even communist. Agoncillo's idea of nationhood is that of the Indios robbed of their nation by recent settlers. For Agoncillo (it seems), the Philippines is still not free as the nation is dominated by SPanish mestizos, whom he doesnt seem to consider Filipino. In his book, he wrote passages that said no Filipino benefited from education, the Galleon trade and government. It bedazzles the reader who grew up in the Philippines for we know that Jose Rizal and Manuel Quezon were definitely not Spaniards but were educated in institutions (ATeneo, Letran, etc.) that AGoncillo says were reserved only for Spaniards. We know that Pedro Pelaez was definitely not a Spaniard but he was ARchbishop of Manila, a high position that Agoncillo said were reserved only for Spaniards. So if we are to follow Agoncillo's school of thought, it seems that the Spaniards revolted against themselves and that the revolution was nothing more than a civil war between two kinds of Spaniards, which we know is not true since the government recognizes a Criollo (Padre Jose Burgos) as the "Father of Filipino Nationalism".

Agoncillo's books are fresh looks into Philippine history. It is radically pro-Indio and staunchly anti elite. More traditional writings of Nick Joaquin, CArlos, Zaide and Ambeth Ocampo all wrote that Filipino Nationalism was a recent event and that the revolution was a revolt of the ilustrados. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.92.42 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC) N TO HAVE
 * I wasn't able to follow that in detail, but I think I get the idea. I tried to verify a few specifics, though, and found the following:
 * I happen to have on my bookshelf, so I looked up "Nationalism" in the index. On pages 138-139 she has a brief section titled Spain's Contribution to Filipino Nationalism, where she writes, "To Spain, Filipinos are eternally indebted for having given them their identity as a nation. [...] Throughout the 300-year colonial period, Spain unwittingly caused the diverse native tribes ([list]) to unite into one people - the Filipino nation." On pages 284-285, though, she writes of Suppressed Nationalism and Emergence of Nationalist Parties in the early 20th century, and on page 311 she writes of America's Contribution to Filipino Nationalism. It's not indexed under "Nationalism", but she writes in considerable detail about the Katipunan on pages 227-233, and clearly presents that as a nationalistic movement. It seems to me that she is saying that the seeds of Filipino nationalism were planted and took root during the Spanish colonial period, and bloomed in the Katipunan period and post-1900. I think that supportable by citing.
 * Searching in Google Books for "father of Filipino nationalism" turns up a large number of mentions of Jose Rizal in that role. Adding "Zamora" to that search filtered it down to a few books which mention Gomez/Burgos/Zamora.
 * A paper, Mona Lisa H. Quizon, The Seed of Nationalism, National Historical Institute, speaks of the year 1872 and the event of the conviction and execution of Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora as a turning point in Filipino history - calling it "a year when Filipino nationalism took its full circle." That paper says, "Without 1872, Rizal would now have been a Jesuit and instead of writing Noli Me Tangere would have written the opposite."
 * speaks to this. Page 32 calls the death of Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora "the starting point of active Filipino nationalism". Page 63-64 speaks of Rizal returning to Manila in 1892, saying that he "wanted to direct the work of nationalism in person.", and traveling to the provinces to preach on the themes of unity, organization, and nationalism. Page 67 calls Rizal "the real founder of Philippine nationalism", saying that while the seed of an awakening political consciousness may have been planted by others, Rizal's writings "... cleared the ground of its iniquitous weeds."
 * The subject section badly needs a rewrite using material which cites supporting sources. I would suggest using some of the foregoing points and the supporting sources mentioned as a starting point for such a rewrite. If nobody else gets to it first, and unless there is opposition, I'll probably get into that in the next few days. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to get a hold of Guerrero's book "The First Filipino", which is an award winning biography of Jose Rizal. THe first few pages writes about the execution of Gomez, Burgos and Zamora. I myself haven't read the entire book and have no access to it for the moment. But I did browse on the first few pages. If you wish to know what transpired before GomBurZa, you may want to get a hold of Nick Joaquin's book "A Question of Heroes". Most history books begin with GomBurZa but readers (like myself) did not know it's significance as it was vague. It was Nick Joaquin's book that enlightened me.

I don't have time to conduct research but this is the missing chapter in Filipino history. Most books I've read begin with Lapu-Lapu, Sulayman and jumps into Burgos briefly then jumps into the Propaganda movement. It mentions nothing of what happened from 1565 to 1872, that's almost three centuries. Nick Joaquin's book (A Question of Heroes) is the only one I've encountered so far mentioning events that transpired before 1872 and names like Luis Rodriguez Varela, Andres Novales, Simon de Anda, Pedro Pelaez, Antonio Regidor, Los Hijos del Pais, etc. Also, we must remember that some 70 percent of historical documents on Philippine history remain untranslated from Spanish up to now. That means only 30 percent of what really happened are written in history books we grew up with.

You know, Ambeth Ocampo has a facebook where he encourage comments on his newspaper articles on history. He is a regular writer on history with the Inquirer. It is from him I learned that Sulayman is the "Hero of Manila" and not Andres Bonifacio. Maybe we can clarify from him and ask sources who the Father of Filipino Nationalism is. I did try to google and Jose Rizal came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.92.42 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I live on Boracay, and my sources are limited to what books I happen to have on my bookshelf (augmented during occasional trips to Manila) and what I can find online. Also, if you haven't done so already, please read WP:V. "Ambeth Ocampo told me privately" does not a good supporting source make, and material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed (as I'm probably going to be removing the unsupported content of this section and replacing it with content supported by cited sources). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

English
I've noticed as changes pop this article up on my watchlist that English usage in this article is deteriorating. I would reword, but sometimes I'm not sufficiently familiar with the material to do that. One illustrative paragraph where a change popped up today: "Rizal did many anti-Spanish writings. His two novels, Noli Me Tangere (Touch Me Not, 1887) and El Filibusterismo (The Filibuster, 1891), exposed Spanish abuses in socio-political and religious aspects. The publication of his first novel brought the infamous agrarian conflict in his hometown Calamba, Laguna in 1888 when Dominican haciendas fell into trouble of submitting government taxes. In 1892, Rizal, after his return from the Americas, established the La Liga Filipina (The Filipino League), a Filipino association organized to seek reforms from the colonial government. When the Spaniards learned that their haunted writer was in the Philippines, they arrested and deported Rizal a few days after the Liga was established."


 * "Rizal did many anti-Spanish writings."?? "Many of Rizal's writings were anti-Spanish" would be better, if that's what is intended to be said.
 * I'm guessing that "brought" should be "brought to light".
 * "... fell into trouble of submitting government taxes." ???
 * "... their haunted writer ..."??? I'm guessing that this might have been intended to be something like "the writer they had been hunting", except that I don't see anything establishing that the Spanish were hunting him.

Also, not having read Rizal, I have trouble following the connection between Noli Me Tangere and "brought the infamous agrarian conflict in his hometown ...". The wikilinked article about the novel doesn't help. A page-numbered cite to something like this showing where that novel "brought the infamous agrarian conflict" would help.

This article needs to be looked at by someone who can write English and who knows the material better than I.

Also, supporting sources should be cited. looks like it contains some useful and relevant material. Perhaps other supporting cites can be found in something like. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

German Empire's involvement in the Revolution
Hello, i was wondering of German Empire's involvement of the Philippine Revolution. The Background is like this:

After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 to 1871, Germany's (or should i called it) diplomatic relations of France was still not yet what you called "Peaceful"''. The Second French Repubic's relations to Spain after the French involvement in the civil war (that is even before the Franco-Prussian war) is like Friendly what i called due to France's support to the Royalist against the Liberals. Germany's tensions to France's allies (like Britain and Spain) is growing weary and could start a world war. So Germany planed to supply weapons to rebel factions from France and its Allies' colonies like the Philippine that is under Spain. One German-made weapon that is used by the Katipunan is the bolt action Dreyse needle gun. Although it is not written in the article that it is used by the Katipunan, Few of these guns were delivered secretly and used by the Katipunan. When the Katipunan's numbers grow larger, supplies of this gun were needed and when the Philippines is now independent, it became the First Philippine Republic and PRA's main weapon of choice. Before the Philippine-American war, the Republic needed a new rifle to replace the existing Needle gun. They choose the Mauser rifle (M1889-91) so that is why we have in our local history books that Emilio Aguinaldo ordered i think 100'000 rifles. And also there have been reports that the early Armed Forces (1899-1900) have a Cannon (no specific classification) that is being made by Krupp.''

Whether it is true or not, there are still questions that cannot be answered until today. This is only one of the backgrounds of Germany's involvement in World's revolutions of the late 19th century. If you have any quesions in this discussion, please write it down. By the way, there are many photos of this kind of rifles that are being used by the early Philippine Army. Thank you and MABUHAY!!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikido Philippines (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Japanese influence to the Philippine Revolution
I have read in the book Stories from the Margins by Cornelio Bascara about the suspected Filipino japonesismo, which added to the fears of Spain of German influence in the Philippines. It was said that since 1894, Japan wanted to buy off the Philippines from Spain. Also, the Katipunan asked for Japanese aid from a certain admiral of which it is unknown to the revolutionaries if he had any voice to the Japanese High Command. I wanted to add it to the article but I'm afraid it would make the article longer. Should I make a separate article? Arius1998 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Cry -- dates and sources
The article currently says, "[...] The exact date and location are disputed, but two possibilities have been officially endorsed by the Philippine government: August 26 in Balintawak and later, August 23 in Pugad Lawin. Thus the event is called the "Cry of Pugad Lawin" or "Cry of Balintawak". However the issue is further complicated by other dates such as August 24 and 25 and other locations such as Kangkong, Bahay Toro and Pasong Tamo. Furthermore, at the time "Balintawak" referred not only to a specific place, but also a general area that included some of these proposed sites like Kangkong."

This seems to have come from this July 2009 edit.

This appears to have problems, since August 23 is not later than August 26. Perhaps, though, it means that the August 23 date was endorsed later than the August 26 date.

This is supported by two cited sources, (Agoncillo 1990, pp. 171–17) and (Gatbonton 2000 -- no page number given, and cited from two other places in the article). of the sources cited is a Philippine government source (despite the article content saying, "two possibilities have been officially endorsed by the Philippine government").

The full cite for the first source is That is not previewable online, but I happen to have a copy. Page 171 of that source says that Bonifacio called a general assembly to be held in Balintawak on August 24; departed (from Manila, I infer) on the night of 19 August and arrived in Balintawak before midnight; left Balintawak for Kangkong with 500 others on August 21 and, after overnighting proceeded to Pugadlawin in the afternoon of August 22.

The other source cited is Special:BookSources/971-814-004-2 cannot locate that ISBN with either Google Books or Amazon, and neither of those can locate the title.

I checked some other sources.


 * Philippine Government online sources
 * The Katipunan Revolution, Subcommission on Cultural Heritage says, '[...] the Philippine Revolution exploded on August 23, 1896, in the event that is commemorated as the "Cry of Pugadlawin.
 * Message of President of Roxas honoring the 50th anniversary of the Cry of Balintawak, August 26, 1946 seems to put the date at August 26.
 * Bonifacio Sesquicentennial says, "Caloocan used to be part of Tondo until 1815 when it became a municipality. The town’s growth surged after the completion of the Manila-Dagupan railway in 1892. It was there, in August 23, 1896, that Andres Bonifacio led the famous cry that sent the clear message of resistance to Spanish rule. [...]"
 * Milestones in History, quezoncity.gov.ph says, "August 23, 1896 [...] an event known today as the Cry of Pugad Lawin."
 * Manifesto to Certain Filipinos by José Rizal, joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph says, "SETTING: In August, 1896, the Katipunan was prematurely discovered by the Spanish authorities. Bonifacio escaped capture and on the 26th of that month, at Balintawak on the outskirts of Manila, raised the cry of revolt [NOTE: The action commonly referred to as “The Cry of Balintawak” actually happened in Pugadlawin, History of the Filipino People by Agoncillo, 8th ed.]."


 * Book sources
 * says that Bonifacio rallied the Katippuneros to an emergency meeting in Balintawak on August 26, and does not mention Pugad Lawin.
 * (which I cannot locate by ISBN in Google Books) says on page 150 that Bonifacio and around 500 rebels left Balintawak and proceeded to Kangkong, moving onwards to Pugad Lawin the next day.
 * (which I cannot locate by ISBN in Google Books) says on page 176 that the meeting took place on August 23 in Pugadlawin
 * (which I cannot locate by ISBN in Google Books) says on page xv that an attempt to distort history in the 1920s and 30s cluminated in 1962 when the "Cry of Pugad Lawin" officially superseding the "Cry of Balintawak". On page 48, the book says that an analysis of eyewitness and contemporary sources on the Cry yields a conclusion that "the so-called 'Cry of Pugad Lawin' is an invention", and provides considerable detail about that. The book also concludes that "There is ample documentation on the tearing of the cedulas and the initial encounter of the revolution. The chronology of those events therefore no longer hingees on the testimony of just one of the eyewitnessses." The book includes a table titled "Document L : Summary of Katipunan Meetings and Armed Engagements 21-27 August 1896" which lists meetings according to 13 sets of differing primary sources analyzed in the book on various of these dates in Balingtawak, KangKong, and other places. There is an entry in the table legend ("PL") for Pugad Lawin, but the table doesn't show any meetings identified with that entry.

Could someone please try to straighten the article out about dates and venues related to the Cry?

Or perhaps some discussion here is in order. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes vs. cited sources, pagenos
This edit caught my eye. I'm wondering whether the unchanged still-cited supporting source (not previewable online) supports the article content as revised.

Also, I'm tempted to add a lot of pageno tags after refs citing (Custodio & Dalisay 1998) and (Gatbonton 2000). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Aguinaldo-Dewey dispute
There was a very lengthy discussion about the dispute over what Dewey said to Aguinaldo. Being WP:Bold, I removed that entire section. I do not think that it belongs here in an article about the events prior to Dewey showing up. Dewey showing up is the beginning of Spanish-American War in the Philippines, followed by the Philippine-American War. If this lengthy discussion belongs anywhere it is in the Philippine-American War, not here. This should focus on the Philippine Revolution proper with a few paragraphs about the aftermath. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This material was inserted in a series of edits I made in January of 2008 beginning with this one. The edit inserting the bulk of the material is a couple of revisions onward from there. A stray &lt;References /> tag was in the article for a couple of those edits. I don't remember the details of the editorial circumstances surrounding these edits -- there doesn't seem to be any significant talk page discussion about them. A major point of concern was probably re article assertions about conversations in April and May of 1898 between Aguinaldo and the USS Petrel commander in Hong Kong, possibly with Wildman in HK, with Pratt in Singapore (with Bray acting as interpreter), with Dewey in Manila, and re a cable exchange between Pratt and Dewey re Aguinaldo's return.


 * There are somewhat conflicting descriptions in various sources about all of this. The details are complicated, messy, and sometimes contradictory between sources. My take is that Aguinaldo no doubt thought of these conversations in light of their impact re the Philippine revolution, the Americans thought of them in light of their impact on the Spanish-American War, and Bray probably thought of them as opening up an opportunity for himself personally. The edits inserting the material were probably driven by concerns about NPOV, particularly DUE (re conflicting viewpoints). The concern here re the removed material seems to be
 * How much detail about this belongs here?
 * Where, if anywhere, does the rest of the detail belong?
 * The best I can come up with is to suggest the creation of a tightly focused main article on Resumption of the Philippine Revolution (or somesuch), to cover this mess there giving due weight there to the accounts in various somewhat conflicting sources, and to refer to that article elsewhere as appropriate -- per WP:SS.


 * It seems to me that the various WP articles covering particular aspects of this period of Philippine history are generally too wordy, too loosely organized, and overlap one another too much. This edit is probably a good start at tightening up this one article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

End date
An anonymous user changed the end date of the Philippine Revolution from 1898 to 1902. I changed it again but to 1897, not to 1898, to correspond to the date of the Pact of Biak-na-Bato, though I am happy with 1898. I did add a note however that explains my position and that says, "Some historians include in the Philippine Revolution the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars and therefore use 1902 as the end date of the Philippine Revolution. To avoid duplication between the Philippine Revolution and the Philippine-American War article, this article treats the Philippine Revolution as having ended with the Pact of Biak-na-Bato in 1897." My main reason for keeping the date of this article as either 1897 or 1898 is consistency and non-redunacy. It is consistent because other articles use 1898 to delineate the Spanish from the American eras. It avoids redundancy because if we extended this article up to 1902 then we would end up either absorbing the Philippine-American War article or having substantial portions of both articles saying the same thing. Perhaps a simple footnote is not sufficient to explain that some treat 1896-97 and 1898-1902 as different conflicts with different combatants (Spain and America respectively) while others treat both as two phases of the same event. Perhaps we need a paragraph in the body of the article explaining the relationship between the two. I am happy with either one, provided that we can get some decent citations. It is difficult to talk about messy human history in a logical fashion in an article format. Doing so often requires treating things as distinct when things are not that distinct and clear. Us messy human beings do not act as clearly, as delineated as historians yearn to treat us. I think that we Wikipedians can maintain some logical distinction between the Revolution and War articles while also mentioning the messy nature of the conflict(s) and the fact that they did not end in a big dramatic climax (e.g. with atomic bombs and a formal declaration of surrender) that is nicely distinct and definitive for writers of history. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of changes to the lead
Today, while looking at something else, I noticed that the lead said, "On June 12 [(of 1898)], Aguinaldo issued the Philippine Declaration of Independence, and the First Philippine Republic was established." This has been in the article since this 2009 edit, but the oversimplification here distorts too much, IMO.

As I recall without checking:
 * On 19 May, 1898, Dewey returned Aguinaldo to Manila from Hong Kong.
 * On 24 May, Aguinaldo proclaimed (I'm not sure whether this was verbal or whether there might have been a written proclamation) that he either was establishing or would establish a government with himself as dictator.
 * On 12 June, he issued a declaration of independence from Spain.
 * On 18 June, he officially established his dictatorial government.
 * On 24 June, he changed the character of his government from dictatorial to revolutionary.
 * In January of 1899, the First Philippine Republic was established.

I probably got some of those dates wrong, but they are approximately correct.

Given this, I have changed the content asserting, ""On June 12 [(of 1898)], Aguinaldo issued the Philippine Declaration of Independence, and the First Philippine Republic was established." to reead, ""On June 12 [(of 1898)], Aguinaldo issued the Philippine Declaration of Independence." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Designation of Bonifacio's position
This edit caught my eye. Among other changes, it changes the infobox designation of the position held by Bonifacio and Aguinaldo from "Supremo/President" to "President". My understanding is that Bonifacio held a position designated "Supremo" (Agoncillo 1990 p.152), that Aguinaldo held a position designated as "President" (Agoncillo 1990 p.178), and that it is incorrect to refer to Bonifacio as "President". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think "President" is synonymous w/ Supremo for the fact that his full title in the Sovereign Tagalog Nation is "Supreme President (Spanish: Presidente Supremo; Tagalog: Kataastaasang Pangulo) see List of unofficial Presidents of the Philippines. HeneraVicente23 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I've adjusted the indent level of the comment above, per WP:TPG.

I am used to seeing the "Supremo" given as a title for Botifacio and "President" for Aguinaldo. As far as Bonifacio's "Tagalog Republic" goes, I would characterize that as more of a sidebar to the the Philippine Revolution (this article's topic) than as a part of it. I had started this discussion, though, based on my own recall and a check of just the one source I mentioned above, as that source is already cited in this article and I happen to have a copy of it on my bookshelf. I have now looked more widely, and I see that some other sources (e.g.,, , , -which waffles a bit on that point) support the characterization of Bonifacio as "President" of the Katipunan, of its Supreme Council, and/or of insurgent organizations styled as as governments growing out of the Katipunan. I don't understand Tagalog, but it now seems to me that this title nomenclature issue probably grows out of variances in translation from Tagalog to English. Also see the part of the Tagalog Republic article reading, "Official letters and one appointment paper ...". I won't be dogmatic in arguing for "Supremo" vs. "President" as Bonifacio's title. I think this title nomenclature matter is probably worth a clarifying footnote in this article, but I won't argue the matter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Edits reverted June 28, 2019
Here, I have WP:BOLDly reverted three recent edits, one by an anonymous editor and two by a registered editor with only these two edits logged. I have not had the time to go through them in detail, but one edit summary says, "I have corrected the facts in this article based on official historical documents."; one of the sources I noticed being cited in that edit is this 1960 journal article which appears be a review of or commentary about this book by its author. That book is cited by some WP articles touching on the topic of this article, but it is hardly an official historical document. That book is cited following a sentence which characterizes the $20M payment made by the U.S. to Spain as "a superlative bargain", which is apparently an editorial characterization of the description here in that book; that description being described there as a sneering comment made by Thomas Brackett Reed during debate of a Senate resolution. I am very busy this week, but I'll try to find the time at some point to take a closer look at this. In the meantime, please discuss here as needed. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

End of the revolution
This edit caught my eye. It changed result=Truce, followed by intervention of the Spanish-American War to result=Filipino Victory in the infobox, saying  That opened a can of worms for me.

The article mentions Biak-na-Bato in the Course of the Revolution section. Two sections follow that: Spanish–American War, which takes us through the Philippine Declaration of Independence and the First Philippine Republic, and Philippine–American War. Subsequent history, including American rule, the Commonwealth era, and eventual Philippine independence are not mentioned. The edit raised the question for me about where to draw an ending line here on the revolution. The infobox now draws that line past a "truce to end the revolution" (that is from the Pact of Biak-na-Bato article) onwards to a transient moment of revolutionary victory, but the article continues past that line.

I started to add a section on American Rule, Commonwealth era, and Independence, thinking perhaps to change the infobox to result=eventual independence, but scrapped that and started this discussion here instead. I'm not sure that is the best course for the article, but I don't know what to suggest as better.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ending date
This edit caught my eye. The edit changed the ending date of the revolution asserted in the infobox from August 13, 1898 to January 23, 1899, and rewrote a footnote explaining the rationale behind the date asserted. Neither date and neither rationale was cite-supported. Following on this, I made this edit, relocating the asserted rationale to a Notes section in the infobox, tagging it cn, and adding a discuss tag pointing to this talk page section. Please discuss below, and please cite supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (added) It occurs to me that this new date and rationale, if support can be found and they are to stand, would require expansion of the article's lead paragraph. That paragraph currently describes the revolution as "a revolution and subsequent conflict fought between the people and insurgents of the Philippines and the Spanish colonial authorities of the Spanish East Indies, under the Spanish Empire (Kingdom of Spain)." Further changes in the article might also be needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (added) Somewhat to the contrary of the above, it occurs to me that
 * Article 99 of the Malolos Constitution, proulgated on January 21, 1899, says, "... in the meantime that the country is fighting for its independence", implying that a fight for independence was undarway both before and after that promulgation date (see e.g.,here).
 * Fighting erupted between Filipino and American troops on February 4, 1899, and that is the date given in the Philippine–American War as "Outbreak of war".
 * I see (e.g., here) that a proclamation by Aguinaldo on February 4, 1899, could easily be taken as a declaration of war on the U.S.
 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (added) See also History of the Philippines (1898–1946) and this edit to the article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Partof in infobox
This edit caught my eye. I've partially reverted it by removing Spanish–American War. The infobox docs say that this optional parameter is for "the larger conflict containing the event described in the article", and I think that it would be more correct to say the converse -- that the Philippine Revolution contained the SpanAm War. Those two would probably be better characterized as two separate conflicts which happened to intersect in time and to interact strongly. Characterizing the Philippine Revolution as part of a war between two foreign colonizing powers would probably raise the hackles of a lot of Filipinos. and rightly so IMO. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Isabelo Artacho
I have recently added cite-supported information to this article mentioning Isabelo Artacho, who was apparently a fairly major figure in the Philippine revolution and is mentioned in various other WP articles (see here). I have just come a additional related and somewhat contradictory information in what appears to be a book self-published in Manila sometime after 1955. I will mention and link that source here for future reference and, possibly, as a source of or steppingstone to further for article content. The book is: Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Why was the list of battles removed
There used to a list of battles box below the warbox,and it wad such a great way to navigate this topic, and for some reason it was taken off. 93.136.227.244 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you refer to the campaignbox that is still present below the infobox. click [show] there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Bonifacio after Tejeros
Here, I have made a WP:BOLD change to the article. I haven't seen the source cited by the citation I've removed, but the assertion citing it mentioned, "after the fall of Imus", and I saw no foundation for that mention (the Battle of Imus article appears to be about another battle there). My replacement content is cite-supported and agrees with the content of other relevant articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Result
It strikes me that "Filipino victory" as a statement of the result of the Philippine Revolution in the infobox is an oversimplification that could be fairly said to be incorrect and misleading. Looking at the relevant info at infobox military conflict, I believe that it should read "Inconclusive", with clarification, possibly in a bulleted list similar to what is done now, but also in the article body and/or in a footnote.

The opening words of the lead sentence of the article read, "The Philippine Revolution[5] was a war of independence ...". In War of independence) -> Wars of national liberation, the lead sentence reads, "Wars of national liberation, also called wars of independence or wars of liberation, are conflicts fought by nations to gain independence." Did the revolution achieve its objective? Not if that objective was independence. Independence was declared by the revolutionaries and the First Philippine Republic was promulgated, but independence had not been achieved and the Malolos constitution acknowledges this; see here for the Spanish text and an English translation of that constitution wherein Article 99 (quoted in the First Philippine Republic article) says, "Article 99 Notwithstanding [...] while the country needs to fight for its independence, the Government shall be authorized during the recess of Congress to ...". If the revolution is considered to have ended with the establishment of the First Philippine Republic as a polity, its outcome with respect to achievement of its objective was inconclusive.

If the Philippine-American War which began shortly after the establishment of the First Philippine Republic is considered a continuation of the revolution, "Filipino victory" is surely not a fair characterization of the result.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Having seen no discussion, I have made this WP:BOLD edit to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)