Talk:Spanish–American War

Removed assertion that the U.S. "backed" the Philippine Revolution.
Here, I've removed ", which the U.S. later backed upon entering the Spanish-American War", re the Philippine Revolution, and have rearranged the text a bit. This has been in the article for a long time. Commodore Dewey certainly facilitated the resumption of the revolution (which had been suspended in 1897 by the Pact of Biak-na-Bato) by returning Emil Aguinaldo to Manila from exile in Hong Kong, and this is explained a bit further down in this same section of the article. Asserting that the U.S. "backed" the revolution, though, overstates the extent and the depth of U.S. commitment in that regard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

So you have this opinion that the US did not back the Philippine Revolution so you just change it? Where is your evidence that they did not back the Philippine Revolution? They were literally at war with Spain. They encouraged, supported and egged-on the Revolution and killed the enemy of the Filipinos but that doesn't meet the official (according to you) definition of backed? It seems like you are motivated to minimize the US role in the Spanish-American war. Zengalileo (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox collage
The collage in the infobox shows a picture of USS Iowa from 1918, when it looked very different than it did in 1898. Any chance we could substitute a more appropriate picture? Jrt989 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you care to choose an image from the category on Commons, Category:USS Iowa (Battleship No. 4) (ship, 1897) - and I'll make the change and upload a brand new collage. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Eloquent Peasant: Happy to do so, and thank you for the prompt response. How about File:USS Iowa 1898.jpg?  It was taken during the Victory Fleet Review at the end of the war. Best, Jrt989 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I made the change. I became interested in the Spanish-American War 'cause I found this book, which I've been trying to complete this on Wikisource for years but need someone to give it a second look on each page .. I uploaded all the images from the book but so far the project is very slow-going and no one has shown an interest in validating the pages. :) --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Eloquent Peasant Thank you for making the change. Good luck with your project--I hope you are able to find some help with validating the pages.  Best, Jrt989 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. The project has no deadline so I'll get it done. :) --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Who wanted this war and why?
It just doesn't track that the entire war was all about a submarine and nobody wanted this war except for a handful of Democrats in office. We should start a discussion. Also, the statement about only the Democrats wanting the war needs to be backed up. I'm not saying I disagree with it. But it seems like an important point and deserves to be backed up solidly. If that statement is indeed solid then a lot of my questions are answered. But it could be made more clear and spelled out and explained better. Zengalileo (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, to lead off this whole article with the submarine attack makes it seem like it was all about that attack. But the rest of the article shows that the US had been coveting Cuba for over a half century before this. There were specific plans being drawn up by powerful people to buy or take by force, ownership of Cuba. You'd have to be pretty naive to think that the US declared war on Spain with only the most tender feelings of concern for the human rights of Cubans and the loss of a submarine. It's only awwwwwful convenient that we had that submarine blow up right when we wanted Cuba the most. And I don't think snyone believes that America ever thought of Cuba as independent after the war. It became exactly what they alwsys wanted it to be, a US possession, something they made a lot of money off of. Cuba was never really allowed to just do what it wanted without permission from Washington. At least not until the 1960s. Zengalileo (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you read the article again. With regard to what you describe as a submarine, you should probably pay attention to the USS Maine dispatch to Havana and loss section. With regard to U.S. intentions re Cuba, you should probably pay attention to the Teller and Platt Amendments section and also read the Teller Amendment article. I see that you are new to Wikipedia. I suggest they you also read WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll certainly read those million articles. But does that mean you refuse discourse on this talk page with anyone who has not read, and re-read and re-read all those articles (I'm guessing you mean for me to keep re-reading the articles until I reach the same conclusion as you.) Don't think that because I ask these questions, that I'm unfamiliar with the answers apologists give. At the end of the day Wikipedia is not allowed to come to any conclusions that put America in a bad light. So any suggestion that America is an Imperialist nation that wages wars for profit and theft starting with the Spanish American War will be swarmed upon by thousands of American apologists and FBI agents who will gas light and deny, deny, deny thar America is anything but a genuine, tender, loving helper to oppressed peoples everywhere. But thanks for the article references anyway. Zengalileo (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh. At this point, I will stop feedig the troll. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does the article describe this war as, "The 10-week war"?
The 7th paragraph of the article starts with, "The 10-week war was fought in both the Caribbean and the Pacific."

The dates given for this war in the article's opening sentence are April 21 – August 13, 1898. This represents a period of 114 days or 16 weeks (and 2 days).

So why is it described only as a 10-week war?? Is there some basis for this, or is it merely a mistake by whomever wrote this presupposition?

(The war officially ended with the Treaty of Paris in Dec 1898, so technically, the case could be made that the length of the war was far greater than 16 weeks, but that's not what I'm asking/questioning here.) 51.219.141.160 (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ removed "10 week" war. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh! But there may have been some basis to the "10-week" claim! Maybe the main fighting only took place over a period of 10 weeks? I wasn't suggesting it be removed just like that, I was wondering why this "10-week" assertion was stated.
 * 51.219.141.160 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It appeared in 2010 here, replacing "four-month war" with "ten-week war", as part of a larger edit. I have not looked further than that. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)