Talk:Battle of Balangiga

Worst single defeat?

Less than 200 casualties and this can be described as the worst US defeat in all history? Seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Oldkinderhook 13:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states quite specifically it was the worst defeat since Little Big Horn.

Response: The comparison with Little Big Horn is drawn in R O Taylor's The Massacre At Balangiga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly is it a "massacre"? Did the Filipinos kill civilians during the engagement or following it? If not then it would be a straight military engagement; not liking the outcome hardly makes it a massacre. Although massacre certainly would be an apt description for the Americans response. LamontCranston 20:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Response: It was a massacre because it was a preplanned surprise attack perpetrated by seemingly friendly civilians on unarmed soldiers. No prisoners were taken, or attempted to be taken. They slaughtered every person they could, even as they were fleeing. The bodies were later mutilated.

The history of Balangiga is colored by the limited contemporary accounts and its use as a bludgeon for more recent political ends. There likely needs to be some more added about that.

Response: It is more coloured by lack of use of available contemporary records, including Filipino message traffic in two compilations by RM Taylor and in the Philippine Insurgency records, letters from First Lieutenant Bumpus while in Balangiga as well as almost exclusive dependency upon Schott's Ordeal of Samar and lack of original research.

Response: Agree. Modern (and fashionable) Anti-Americanism not surprisingly has caused a case of revisionist history here.

The bells issue also involved some American law changes.

Neutrality

Some of this article, most especially the portion under the heading "The 'Massacre'", smacks of POV to me - I'd clean it up myself, but I know nothing about the topic. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Important Piece of Information Left Out?

There is some evidence that the attack on the American troops was planned even before the troops arrived. According to American History Illustrated, August 1966,(Richard P. Weinert), Pedro Abayan, the presidente of Balangiga, sent a letter to the leader of the insurrection, General Vincente Lucban, and proposed that the invaders (American troops)be lured into Balangiga where he said the local inhabitants would rise up and destroy them. Then he sent a letter to Manila asking that a contingent of American forces be sent to Balangiga to protect Balangiga against the rebel forces and the Moro pirates. If this piece of unmentioned info is true, then the American troops were walking into a trap. So, the question is, should this piece of information, that at one time was accepted as true, be mentioned in the story with qualifiers, or simply left out.Trucker11 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Response: At the time the first letter was sent Lucban/Lukban was demanding expressions of loyalty from local mayors, with severe punishment for those who did not do so. The original letter disappeared prior to the microfilming of the Philippine Insurgency Records, what remains is what is alleged to be a 'fair copy'. There is no evidence whatsoever that the town mayor wrote to Manila.

Interesting. Grubbing around a bit, I found this page, which contains some info about the letter under Published archival documents. Unfortunately, the page is self-published by one Prof. Rolando O. Borrinaga who, though a scholar, appears not to be a recognized expert in this field (see here). He mentions that the letter itself was published as Exhibit 1350 in this. Prof. Borringa refers to something called the "Balangiga Research Group" (BRG) and says

Much has been squeezed from this letter by the Americans in terms of prior sinister motives of the part of the Balangigans. But the BRG, after analyzing its content and context, is satisfied with the finding that the intent of the letter was merely to prevent Lukban or his officers from attacking the town in case of American occupation.

Footnote 20 says

20. Balangiga Research Group, “A Summary Interim Report of Inquiry,” Sept. 28, 2001, p. 5. This may be downloaded from http://balangiga.bobcouttie.com. Schott, see Note No. 13, p. 26, noted that “the original letter was written in clear grammatical Spanish.” Because of the clarity in language, the Americans suspected that the actual author of the letter was the local priest, not Abayan. Last Sept. 27, 2001, while viewing the Balangiga museum exhibit at the local parish hall, the BRG members learned that Abayan had in fact been the parish scribe of Balangiga for years. In ornate handwriting, he wrote the texts of the registry items for births and marriages on the parish records on behalf of the priests who affixed their signatures later. The penmanship in an enlarged photo of Abayan’s letter to Lukban looked similar to his handwriting in the parish records.

The subdomain on that URL is defunct, but at least one snapshot of it has been archived (see here). Looking at that, I see a link to "The BRG Online Library", but the Articles and Papers link there is broken. All this is in an archived subdomain of http://bobcouttie.com, which is still active but it's dated 2006 and the the "contact" link doesn't work usefully. The name is a bit unusual, though, and this may be the same Bob Couttie who runs this site.

Response: It is the same Bob Couttie and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Anyhow, the letter itself is apparently available as the previously-mentioned Exhibit 1350. That ought to be copyright-free but, being located on a small island in the Philippines, I have no access to it. Perhaps someone with library access might either quote it in the article or scan it and add it to the article as an image. Perhaps, even, there's a copyright-free translation published along with the letter. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Exhibit`350 in RM Taylor's The Philippine Insurgency Against the United States. The manuscript is in US National Archives and it can be found in the microfilm of the Philippine Insurgency Records but you'll have to dig for it. In any case it is a only a hand drawn 'copy'.

Massacre committed by U.S.

At the bottom of this page it list the category "Massacres committed by the U.S." cleary someone has this mixed up because this was a massacre of U.S. troops, not Filipinos, why would the U.S. army massacre themselves? I am removing the category at the bottom that says this was a crime committed by the U.S. military, when really it was the other way around. Read the article and notice the casualties. --Aj4444 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if it was a massacre by U.S. troops, why did the Filipinos win the battle?--Aj4444 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoops... my bad. Sorry for the inadvertent revert. (The finger was quicker than the eye). Cheers! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 12:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag was added because of the succeeding retaliation by US forces led by Gen. Jacob H. Smith against local indigenous Philippine population of samar. Read the "Retaliation" section. i think the tag "Massacres committed by the U.S" should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.218.133 (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The "massacre" here was perpetrated by the Americans. The incident that prompted the massacre was a battle (albeit one in which civilians participated); just because the battle was a one-sided surprise attack that does not make it a massacre. Slaughtering thousands of civilians (women & children included) in response is, however, rightly called a massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.60.218 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

definition of a massacre: "American armed soldiers killed in a battled"

Reversion in Retaliation section, 2009-11-27

I've reverted this edit). which modivied previous cite-supported text just prior to the following: <ref name="AmHistCollection">Bulletin of the American Historical Collection, April-June 2004, Volume XXXII, page 65</ref>"

The edit summary said, (→Retaliation: "Great loss of life" is POV... to Filipinos (and many others such as myself), even 2500 is indeed a "great loss of life" and saying; for not much more people, the US started 2 wars.)

Considering the edit summary, I suspect that this change is WP:OR, probably not supported by the cited supporting source.

The reversion restored an assertion saying, "A great loss of life is not supported, especially as refugees fled from Samar to Leyte." which had been inserted in this edit along with the above-mentioned supporting cite. I have not seen the cited source myself and do not know how well it supports that assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed it because the original wording is offensive. "Great" here can be understood in two senses. First, "great" as in "important or meaningful," which is patently offensive to Filipinos. The losses are still a sore point in the Philippines and to suggest that they were insignificant is borderline racist. On the other hand, "great" could be interpreted as "many or a lot," which is what I suspect the original author had in mind. I think they intended to say that, contrary to some Filipino claims, more neutral sources suggest that deaths of 50k seem very unlikely. I think this is what the cited source is meant to confirm: some historians claim x, but most believe y. However, here again the use of "great" is very subjective and offensive to Filipinos. If the historical consensus is that 2500, not 50000, died, that is still "a great loss of life." My point was that the US started two wars based on the killings of 3000 civilians -- imagine if the Wikipedia entry said, "9/11 was tragic, but there was no great loss of life." Americans would rightly be upset over this wording. Instead, and perhaps I worded it poorly, the sentence needs to summarize the debate: one party says one thing, another party says another, but most "objective" scholars side with party B that fatalities approaching 50,000 are impossible. Wikipedia should not be editorializing those deaths with a modifier, "great," to describe them. Pariah23 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Offensive; " 'Offensive' is not a valid editorial criteria for a Wikipedia article."

Also see Wikipedia:Assume good faith; "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith." and Wikipedia:Verifiability; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. " The editor who added that assertion cited a supporting source. The cited source is not available online and I have not verified whether or not it supports the article assertion, but I'm assuming that the source was cited in good faith. A bit of research turned up this, which indicates that the cited source, Bulletin of the American Historical Collection, April-June 2004, Volume XXXII, page 65, is available for viewing at the National Library of Australia. Perhaps someone could look it up and quote the relevant snippet.

The bit at issue contrasts a figure of 2,500 retaliatory killings with a figure of 50,000 (citing this). Either figure is horrendous, but the disparity between the figures is striking. The article goes on to point out that even though the rate of population increase in samar slowed as some fled to Leyte (the cited source for that, it turns out, is available online here (I'll add a link in the citation), and speaks of emigration from Samar to Leyte in the relevant timeframe) and, asserting that Samar's population increased by 21,456 during the war (citing the first-mentioned source) says "A great loss of life is not supported.", relying on that first-mentioned source for both the 21,456 population increase figure and for the observation that this does not support the conclusion that there was a great loss of life (see this edit)".

If other sources contradict that last cited source, info from those sources can be added by any editor. Such added info should cite supporting sources, and given due weight in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision: I have extended "Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000" to add "for which there is no documentary or any other evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 11:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Response: The 50,000 figure, which has been constantly repeated, comes from a paper in the now-defunct Leyte-Samar Studies, by American historian Kenneth Rey Young. Young had made the error of subtracting an 1887 Spanish census figure for Batangas from an American census figure for Samar in 1903. The figure is, therefore, meaningless. While there is an estimate population shortfall of 2,500, that covers a period from 1896 to 1906 so there is no firm basis for ascribing the shortfall to 'retaliatory killings'. Using population ageing figures the figure of 1,500 can be calculated for the male 18-24 year old age group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point made by Pariah23, which is that the word "great" is extremely subjective, and certainly, a phrase like "there was no great loss of life" should not be appearing in the article. To say that 2500 deaths is not a great loss of life is in no way an objective statement. Fortunately, that phrase is not in the article right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.88.213 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Linking of two birth certificates

The Sarah Palin section says, in part:

The linking between the question whether Trig is her son to Barack Obama's birth certificate issues has been heavily criticized.[1] Andrew Sullivan, in specific, wrote "Palin has never produced Trig's birth certificate or a single piece of objective medical evidence that proves he is indeed her biological son".[2]

I've converted the refs into inline links there. That presents the Sullivan comment as an example of criticism of the linking. Reading that comment in context, I don't see it as a criticism of the linking. Sullivan characterizes Palin as having "joined or at least mainstreamed the Birther movement", but if he speaks to the linkage between the questions about Obama's and Trig's birth certificates, I missed it. He leads with comments about Palin's birther-ness, but most of the linked article is about Trig's birth circumstances. As I read it, Sullivan's key point relevant to this article in that source is, "The news here is that, to her credit, Palin says that all inquiries into a candidate's veracity, record, associations, and medical history are legitimate forms of inquiry." As I read that, he's saying that questions about Obama's birth certificate go to his natural-born-ness , imply that he may be a liar/perjurer, and are legitimate; questions about Trig's birth certificate imply that Palin may be a liar, and are legitimate. I suggest removing the final sentence and the link to the Sullivan comment, or rewriting the assertions in this section to highlight Sullivan's birther characterizations of Palin and/or the legitimacy of questions about a candidate's veracity, record, associations, and medical history.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Stricken Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

uhhh... Bill, does this belong here? — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 02:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not. I meant it for another talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange

Does anyone else find it strange that between 2000-3000 people are killed, and the only part of events that earns the title of massacre is the killing of the first 40? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of earning the title of "massacre" (strange concept, that). It's a matter of using established terminology. The article says, "The Balangiga massacre, as it is known in the Philippines, or the Balangiga affair, as it is known in the United States, ...", citing Brooke, James (1997-12-01). "U.S.-Philippines History Entwined in War Booty". The New York Times., which says, "The bells are a symbol to both sides in a violent page of history from the turn of the century, known in the United States as the Balangiga Affair and in the Philippines as the Balangiga Massacre."

I took a look at a few other handy sources, which date the massacre of the U.S. garrison on various dates ranging from 26 to 29 September, 1901...

• Agoncillo, Teodoro C. (1990) [1960], History of the Filipino People (8th ed.), Quezon City: Garotech Publishing, ISBN 971-8711-06-6 doesn't mention Balalinga Massacre in the Index. It mentions Balaling, with one sub-entry saying "Incident, 228-229" The text there is in a subsection headed "Barbarous Acts" which begins on P. 227. At the bottom of P. 228, Agoncillo writes, "In their desperation, the American soldiers turned arsonists buring whole towns in order to force guerillas to the open. One such case of extreme barbarity occurred in the town of Balangigi, Samar, in 1901-1902. Balangiga was a peaceful little port off the southern tip of Samar, but it was garrisoned by Americans who could not pinpoint the nerve-center of guerrilla activities in the town. Many American soldiers who garrisoned the town were veterans of the Boxer Rebellion and had participated in the capture of Peking. The American soldiers were busy one morning taking their breakfast when suddenly they were attacked by Filipinos in their employ. The church bells rang, and soon about 180 Filipinos fell upon the Americans many of whom were killed instantly. The other Americans who tried to escape were boloed to death, while others were hacked from nose to throat. The news of the guerilla attack attack gave rise to pained cries throughout the United States and so president Roosevelt gave orders to Pacify Samar." The account goes on to descripe General Smith's orders, says, "... in six months, Balangiga became 'a howling wilderness.' ", and reports General Smaith's subsequent court-martial and retirement from service.
• Stanley Karnow (1990), In our image: America's empire in the Philippines, Ballantine Books, ISBN 9780345328168 lists "Balangiga massacre, 189-91" in the index. The text describes the occvupation, Captain Connel, the garrison commander arranging for a Sunday Mass after learning of the assassination of U.S. President McKinley, the Massacre of the Americans that Sunday morning, the re-occupation of the town by a reacti9on force of 53 volunteers, what was found upon reoccupying the town ("Their dead comrades had been mutilated beyond belief—as if an arcane rite had driven the townsfolk into a barbaric frenzy. Disemboweled bodies had been stuffed with molasses or jam to attract ants. The sergeant killed while washing his mess kit was still upended in the water barrel, his feet chopped off. A bag of flouer had been poured into the slit stomach of an unidentified corpse. Even the company dog had been slain, his eyes gouged out and replaced with stones. Captain Connel's head was found in a fire, far from his torso, his West Point ring missing along with the finger"), and goes on to describe reaction in the U.S., describes General Smith's orders, and launches into a description of the Samar campaign.
• Miller, Stuart Creighton (1984), Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903 (4th edition, reprint ed.), Yale University Press, ISBN 9780300030815, in the index, lists "Balangiga; occupation of, 200-201, masssacre at, 202-04; effect of massacre on tactics, 206-07, 201; Marines occupy, 219-220, 221, 222, 225, 230". Miller breaks the description up into several segments; the occupation of the town, the massacre of the American occupying troops, the commitment of a batallion of 300 Marines to the Samar campaign,and the campaign itself. Miller begins a new chapter, The Last Campaign: Samar Challenges American Innocence on page 219.
• Wolff, Leon (1960), Little Brown Brother: How the United States Purchased and Pacified the Philippine Islands at the Century's Turn, Doubleday & Company, Inc, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 61-6528 lists "Balangiga massacre, 354ff." in the index. Page 354 starts a chapter titled End and Beginning which starts on p.354 with the arrival of U.S. troops in the town, describes the massacre of the U.S. troops in the town on pp. 355-357, mentions General Lukban's congratulating th Balangigans, his urging othrs to immitate them, and the subsequent killing of ten Americans and wounding of six in a similar uprising several days later at Gandara, on p. 357, and goes on to describe the Samar campaign on pp. 357-359.
• Zaide, Sonia M. (1994), The Philippines: A Unique Nation, All-Nations Publishing Co., ISBN 971-642-071-4 has "Balangiga, 272" in the index. A paragraph on p.272 reads,

The worst military disaster of the U.S. Military forces in the Visayas was the annihilation of the American garrison at Balangiga, Samar, on September 28, 1901, by General Vincente Lukban's bolomen. On the 74 American officers and soldiers composing the garrison, 50 were slaughtered (including the commander Captain Thomas O'Connell) and only 24 survived the Filipino bolos by running away during the bloody fight. The victorious patriots captured a rich booty of war—100 Krag rifles and 25,000 rounds of ammunitions. American writers called the U.S. military debacle the "Massacre of Balangiga".

Those are the sources which I happen to have handy. It seems clear to me that these sources tend to separate the massacre of U.S. troops in the town of Balangiga from the description of the Samar campaign which followed, and that the massacre in the town of Balangiga is generally called the "Balangiga Massacre". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

New Data

Most of the data related to the BRG mentioned above can be found in

• Couttie, Bob (2004), Hang The Dogs: The True Tragic History Of The Balangiga Massacre, New Day., ISBN 9711011247

It deals with a number of myths, including the involvement of Vicente Lukban - who had nothing to do with it. Most accounts depend heavily on Schott's very flawed Ordeal of Samar. Others could not even get the day right "the Massacre of the Americans that Sunday morning" It was a Saturday. Much of what happened after Balangiga had already been going on before it happened.

bobcouttie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.9.234 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have remove "the Balangiga Affair as it is known in the US" because it is demonstrably untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 11:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed "the majority of whom were civilians". The intent of the original wording was to imply that these were non-combatants, and is misleading. David Fritz's work, in fact, strongly suggests that majority of deaths were males of combat age — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 11:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh. Just because they were males of combat age does not mean that they were actual combatants. This information hardly disproves that the deaths were those of noncombatants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.88.213 (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Revison 11 December 2011

Deleted: American historians continue to deny that the deaths could have been as numerous at 50,000.

It is self-evidentially untrue since the original figure came from an American historian. The reference is to an article which is not by a a historian. The statement is therefore unsupported in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed "Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000," to "Some Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000," The figure is largely accepted as false but some might still not do their homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcouttie (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

References

My revert of recent edits by 101.115.32.101

I've reverted these recent changes to the article. Aside from breaking a wikilink, the changes confuse the incident which is the topic of this article with the retaliation ordered by General Smith and carried out by Captain Waller and others. The retaliation is covered in some detail in the March across Samar article. Also, I'll point out that the source cited in the reverted edits is an interview with Bob Couttie in which Couttie says that the figure of 50,000 sometimes seen is "pure bunk". When asked if he thinks the figure is closer to 5,000, he responds, "We can only talk in terms of magnitude. You would certainly have to knock a zero off and I would think its probably at most two and a half to three thousand people. Its an area that really needs better research. ...". He goes on with more discussion. That source does not support an assertion by Wikipedia saying, "American troops killed 2000–3000 Filipinos on Samar". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrections

I have removed the inflammatory reference to 2,000 - 3,000 civilians being executed on Samar, for which there is no documentary evidence and which appears to be a rather imaginative rendering of the results of my research published principally in Hang The Dogs. That there were deaths is undeniable, the number and status of the casualties remains unknown. (talk)

Company G, 11th Infantry Regiment

I've moved the following here from the article; see this edit. It needs to be reworked. I don't have time right now, and I don't have access to the source cited.

Company G, 11th Infantry Regiment

There has been many deliberate misinformation or omission of facts that Company C survivors brought the bells to Wyoming. The facts are, (1) Company C, 9th Infantry Regiment were based at Fort Drum in New York, not Fort D.A. Russell, Wyoming; (2)none of the soldiers of Company C came from Wyoming; (3) the bells that are in Wyoming were brought there by Company G of the 11th Infantry Regiment who carried out and took part in the retaliatory forces.<ref>Adams, G. (1998). The bells of balangiga. Cheyenne, WY: Lagumo Corp.</ref>

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There has been a continued claim by the Wyoming Delegation in Congress that Company C survivors brought the two bells to Wyoming. On April 4, 2012, the Wyoming Delegation wrote a letter to the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State that "The Company C troops that survived the massacre brought these bells back to Fort D.A. Russell." This has been their continued justification why the bells must remain in Wyoming. In his book, The Bells of Balangiga, author, Gerald Adams, a retired USAF Colonel from Wyoming, provided details that the 11th Infantry Regiment with eight companies and their equipment arrived at Fort D.A. Russell on March 29, 1904. On May 16, 1905, the Cheyenne Daily Leader newspaper reported that a cannon and other relics, including the two bells were displayed by the parade ground. A sign was posted over one of the bells that reads, "This bell hung in the church at Balangiga, Samar, PI, and rung the signal for the attack on Company C, 9th U.S. Infantry, Sept 29 (28), 1901. Taken by Company L, 11th Infantry, and detachment of Company K, 11th Infantry, the first units to reach the scene after the massacre."

Lt Goodrich served in The Philippines with the 9th Infantry Regiment in 1901 visited Fort D.A. Russell and was disturbed by the 11th Infantry Regiment's claim. Lt Goodrich challenged the claim and sent letters and pictures to the 9th Infantry Headquarters. The 9th Infantry promptly forwarded the letter and picture to Captain Bookmiller who was already in Boston. Captain Bookmiller previously commanded Company G, 9th Infantry. Captain Bookmiller and his troops were the first retaliatory force to arrive in Balangiga on September 29, 1901. Captain Bookmiller wrote a statement and indorsed a letter to Colonel Crane of the 11th Infantry to look into the matter and set the record straight. Colonel Crane was also in The Philippines in 1901 wrote, "...the best claim belongs to priority of arrival at Balangiga after the massacre belongs to Capt Bookmiller and his Company G of the 9th Infantry." There were a total of 15 indorsement added from officers who were also in The Philipines in 1901. They were unanimous in their agreement that Captain Bookmiller was the first on-scene company in Balangiga after the massacre. Upon receiving this mass evidence, Colonel Arthur Wiliams, commander of the 11th Infantry made the following indorsement, "The inscription over the bells at Fort D.A. Russell, Wyoming, clearly appears to be erroneous, and will be corrected at the first opportunity." ref>Adams, G. (1998). The bells of balangiga. Cheyenne, WY: Lagumo Corp.</ref>}} RSonny (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by RSonny (talk • contribs) 10:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow! Color me impressed!

As I said, I don't have access to the source which you cited above. However, using info which you supplied in your response above, I have located a second source (perhaps a second appearance of the same source) which confirms the above and which is viewable online. That second source is

• Gerald M. Adams (1987). "THE F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE WAR TROPHIES FROM BALANGIGA, P.I" (PDF). Annals of Wyoming. 59 (1): 29–38. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

As you've noted in the text moved here from the article in the quote above, this contradicts much information published elsewhere. I suggest that the article ought to go to some pains to clarify this contradiction, per WP:DUE. If I get time, I might do some work on that. Thanks for bringing this to light. Perhaps, even, there might be enough meat here and elsewhere for an article on The Bells of Balingiga. It looks to me as if it would meet WP:GNG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at WP today, I see that there is an article titled Balangiga bells. I think that the information we have been discussing above would be better added to that article. The information in this article ought to be brought into agreement with the information presented in that article, I think (see WP:SS). I'll take a look at that, and may do some editing towards those objectives. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

See this edit of the Balangiga bells article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wyoming delegation know that Wyoming has no historical investment in the bells. Indeed, I have had sight of an email from the Curator at Wyoming to the then curator of the 9th Infantry collection in Korea saying that she did not understand why the bells are still in Wyoming. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.10.22 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong pro-American bias

This discussion page shows a strong slant towards the American point of view. It's a little scary. The article itself seems better, for now at least.

If it had been an American town occupied by foreign invaders, and the inhabitants of that town had managed to smuggle weapons in, catch the garrison by surprise, and decimate them, it would now be hailed in American history as an example of heroic resistance to foreign occupation. The hypocrisy is astounding.

It is not a "massacre", just because the townspeople didn't give the American troops ample warning and time to arm themselves before the fight. Nowhere in the conventions of war does such a rule exist, and to follow that kind of rule in wartime is absurd.

And where exactly did the figures for 2000-3000 Filipinos killed during the retaliation come from? In the absence of sources, 50000 seems just as likely as 2000. This disparity is similar to estimates of casualties during the Nanjing Massacre, from 20000 (Japanese estimate) to 300000 (Chinese estimate). It doesn't matter. It was a massacre in either case.

By the way, just because those 2000-3000 killed were males of fighting age does not mean that they were actually combatants. It doesn't make it any better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.88.213 (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to read some up to date sources. 50,000 is not really credible, that would mean one in five of the island's population and no Filipino historian now takes it seriously. It can be safely set aside because the original source, an American historian called Kenneth Ray Young mistakenly compared figures for Batangas with figures for Samar. The figure was repeated by Teodore Angocillo, without citation. Young is the only source for the claim and he is demonstrably wrong because he used the wrong figures. Note that given the terrain in Samar, the distance between populations and so forth the figure of 50,000 simply was not achievable. The importance of the shortfall being those ofd combat age is that it shows that woman and children were not targetted or killed in large numbers.36.37.233.136 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Balangiga massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120041915/http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/31/counterinsurgency-and-the-us-military/ to http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/01/31/counterinsurgency-and-the-us-military/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050503232955/http://www.mb.com.ph:80/issues/2004/09/27/MTNN2004092719295.html to http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/09/27/MTNN2004092719295.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Balangiga massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905232526/http://bakbakan.com/samarall.htm to http://www.bakbakan.com/samarall.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402103747/http://www.bibingka.com/phg/balangiga/default.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/phg/balangiga/default.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2004/09/27/MTNN2004092719295.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Terminology

Given that this was an uprising by civilians against an occupying invasion force, is it accurate to call it an attack/massacre? In general the term "massacre" refers to unjustified killings rather than resistance to military aggression. 2601:644:1:B7CB:C957:9614:383C:F005 (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Move Balangiga Massacre to Battle of Balangiga

MOVE:

Move Balangiga Massacre to Battle of Balangiga. The title should be changed to "Battle of Balangiga" to comply with Wikipedia's Neutrality or NPOV standard.

REASON:

Massacre defined: "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" -- The men of Company C 9th Infantry Regiment were ambushed -- it was a planned attack not indiscriminate.

The men of Company C 9th Infantry Regiment died in combat when they were ambushed by Filipino irregular forces in a well planned and coordinated attack.

It is the same with the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest where irregular forces belonging to Germanic tribes ambushed and defeated an entire Roman legion. The Romans were "massacred" (ambushed) but as you can see the title is Battle of the Teutoburg Forest not Massacre at the Teutoburg Forest. Juanmakabulos (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is absurd and edits by the above account are clearly an attempt to obscure the fact that 10,000-50,000 Filipino civilians were massacred in immediate retaliation to the battle. It is appropriate to have a neutral article about the Battle of Balangiga, but it is not appropriate to bury the associated Balangiga Massacre in the process. I made some initial attempts to rectify the issue, but more needs to be done to objectively portray the battle and subsequent massacre of civilians. SelfishNation (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I understand your argument and the supporting example re Teutoburg. I recognize that there are WP:NPOV concerns re the naming of this article. However, on the other hand, WP:COMMONNAME, part of WP:Article titles appears, given that Balingiga Massacre is the long-established generally-accepted designation outside of Wikipedia for these events at Balingiga town, to require that the title of this article about those events be Balingiga Massacre. We have two Wikipedia policies bumping heads here.

Separately, and not bearing on this matter here except as it relates to POV about it, I believe that your assertion stated as "fact" re the massacre of 10,000-50,000 Filipino civilians is in reference to the March across Samar, and it is my understanding that there are alternative POVs about the actual scale of Filipino civilian deaths there. quoting from that article:

The exact number of Filipino civilians killed by US troops will never be known, but an exhaustive research made by a British writer in the 1990s put the figure at about 2,500; Filipino historians believe it to be around 50,000. The rate of Samar's population growth slowed as refugees fled from Samar to Leyte, yet still the population of Samar increased by 21,456 during the war. A great loss of life is not supported.

References

If that is to be discussed, the discussion ought to take place on the talk page of that other article. The boxed content above came from March across Samar#Background. Some more info re the retaliation is in Jacob H. Smith#Samar campaignm which is more on-topic here. I've just edited the relevant content in both of those articles to add info from another source I've cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Philippine National Police introduced during apparent POV rewrite

Here, I've WP:BOLDly removed mention of the Philippine National Police introduced here in what looks like part of a POV recasting of this article. As far as I knpw, no organization by that name existed at the time of this incident.

I also added a {{pageno}} tag to the cite at the end of that paragraph. A Google Books search here failed to find any mention of Balangiga, but it may be in there somewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Apportionment of content between articles

I have today raised concern at Talk:March across Samar § Apportionment of content between articles regarding content in the Retaliation section of this article. Please discuss there. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Title of this article

I see that there is a section on this talk page headed § Move Balangiga Massacre to Battle of Balangiga which appeared on May 27, 2020, suggesting that move as if this article was named Balangiga Massacre at that time. The proposal drew two responses (one from me), both opposing such a move and both dated in September 2020. However, according to the links in the page history of this article, it was created on April 17, 2004 with the title, Battle of Balangiga and still bore that name on 31, 2020 (the last edit before that talk page section appeared). I also see from its history that Balangiga Massacre is a redirect to this article that was created on September 23, 2005. In any case I'm thinking of proposing that the title of this article be moved to Balingiga Massacre per the WP:TITLE policy. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Added: See Ngrams here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Having seen no objection, I'm requesting a move below. I'm requesting a move instead of simply moving the article myself because I suspect that there might be opposition despite lack of discussion here so far. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) WPscatter ^t/_c 20:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Battle of Balangiga → Balangiga massacre – See section above on this article talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ngrams are case-sensitive, so I re-ran the the Google ngram viewer here with both upper and lower case 'M's in massacre. My intent, unless consensus develops otherwise and considering WP:LOWERCASE, is to rename the article with a lower-case 'm'. Barring objection here, I'll probably do that early next week. 19:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I support this article move. The incident at Balangiga is regarded more of a massacre than a battle by current Filipino historians and writers. --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doing the move

This article was titled Balangiga Massacre {uppercase 'M') from 01:07, April 17, 2004‎ , when it was created by an anon, until 19:23, June 1, 2020 when the title was moved to Battle of Balangiga by User:Juanmakabulos with an edit summary saying:

moved page Balangiga massacre to Battle of Balangiga: The title should be changed to "Battle of Balangiga" to comply with Wikipedia's Neutrality or NPOV standard. Massacre defined: "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" -- The men of Company C 9th Infantry Regiment were ambushed -- it was a planned attack not indiscriminate. The men of Company C 9th Infantry Regiment died in combat when they were ambushed by Filipino irregular forces in a well planned and c...

I'll note here that the definition given above agrees with Google [3], but that more comprehensive definitions are offered elsewhere (e.g., [4]). Also, this proposed move has been discussed above with no objections having been raised. I proposed this move to the sentence case title primarily with WP:LOWERCASE in mind. I will leave a redirect behind here. I will adjust the Balangiga Massacre (uppercase 'M') redirect to link to that new title. After the move, I will edit the article to adjust its lead sentence and to focus it less on the March across Samar and more on the subject incident. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: It seems that Balangiga massacre now has several duplicate sections. Could you please remove the outdated sections? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for rubbing my nose in my error here -- I do appreciate that. I've done that here and made a few other post-move cleanup changes. More cleanup is probably needed, but I'm scheduled for surgery (broken arm) tomorrow and don't know when I'll be able to get back to this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)