Talk:Spanish–American War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Balance

The article still needs balance, and far better descriptions of the actions and debunking of mythology. Added notes on the action around Fort Canosa, and the role of gatling guns at San Juan, etc. Details of Cuban civilian losses, and tried to balance the raging attacks on Hearst. Done what I can for now will do more later. El Jigüe 1-13-06


diddling with figures

There are it seems some who diddle with figures e.g. "Still by the end of the war in 1898 despite deaths in childbirth "Widows in postwar Cuba represented 50% percent of the adult female population" and women suffered considerably [3]." was changed to "4%." Amazingly nobody noticed. El Jigüe 1-28-06

POV on Hearst

All balance was removed when discussing Hearst reporting on the war, while the very POV rant was left alone. El Jigüe 1-28-06

Dates changed

Apparently in two weeks since I last read this section nobody notice the change from:

"This US intervention put end to the 1895-1898 far bloodier Cuban War of Independence."

to the quite different

"this US intervention put end to the 1565-1788 far bloodier Cuban War of Independence.

and nobody noticed? El Jigüe 1-28-06


US/Spanish losses were inverted

Some more diddling US/Spanish War (1.500/9,500) combat losses have been inverted. Somebody forgot about the Pilipinos Tagalos see Juan Alonso Zayas I corrected what I could. Is everybody else at sleep at the wheel? El Jigüe 1-28-06

Headline text

Charge at San Juan Hill

The image that accompanies the main article on the Spanish American war was done by Frederic Remington and is titled "The Charge of the Rough Riders", but it appeared in an article in Scribner's written by Theodore Roosevelt as "Charge of the Rough Riders at San Juan Hill" Roosevelt's actual charge was at Kettle Hill. The original painting may be seen at the Frederic Remington Art Museum in Ogdensburg, NY - Ed LaVarnway Executive Director

Action in the Phillipines

The last sentence states "The success of the Pacific Fleet was due to the Spanish Navy being trapped in the bay." I think there's much more to it than that such as quality of ships and the Spanish crews being caught unaware and out of range of their shore batteries etc. Does somebody want to takle cleaning that up?

Shouldn't Mckinley be mentioned in the Commanders section

He was the president at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.194.246 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Phillipines

Were the Filipinos with the Spanish or the US? The infobox "Belligerents" shows the Kingdom of Spain all alone, but the "strength" infobox plugs the 51,331 Filipino regulars and militia on the Spanish side. Please clarify. EaswarH (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That number is for Spanish forces fielded to the Philippines, not for Filipino forces allied with the Americans. It comes from here. The supporting cite ought to be sharpened up. I'll take a look at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Article lead

I see that the lead includes this text:

"narrowly refers to the US sponsored punctuation to the late-nineteenth-century turmoil in the Spanish colonies"

"Punctuation"? What's meant by that? --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant for punctuation to straddle two of its definitions—1) the act of lending emphasis to something, and 2) the act of interrupting something. I admittedly took literary liberties in this regard; but I think it sounds fine and makes perfect sense. However, I understand your objection. If you decide to change it, please make it smooth. Far too many edits interrupt the flow of the article.

--JCWBB (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at it - I don't think it intuitively makes sense, but I'll be as sensitive as I can. --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Spain consequences

"For Spain, the conflict, thereafter referred to as “the Disaster,” contributed to the further weakening of the Restoration Government, the eventual rise of the Primo de Rivera dictatorship, and Spain’s military insignificance in the twentieth century"

1.- The text needs to be fixed. Primo de Rivera dictatorship came efctively to power in 1921, that is 23 years after the ending of the war. 2.- The consequences of the war was effectively a social crisis among those conservative people still wanting to go back to the Spanish Empire times. But for others, it represented a chance to progress on claiming for a new order based on democracy. Unfortunatley, both sides collisionated on the Spanish Civil War 1936-39 when General Franco rebelled and seized power. 3.- Effectively the war supossed Spain to be realize that it was a secondary power on the World chessboard, but it also represented an opportunity to setup a support to the people asking for more freedom and lastly democracy. Also the chance for a representation to the nations that compose Spain, providing federalist powers to their territory, very similar to the US states organization. 4.- So the outcome ballance for Spain was bad on territorial loss, but good on freedom and democracy terms.

Spanish References: 1898, entre la crisi d'identitat i la modernització: I. Crisis d'identitat ... By Joaquim Molas 


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.162.73 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


These are some valid concerns; so, since I authored the “questionable” line, let me attempt to convince you of its accuracy.

“1.- The text needs to be fixed. Primo de Rivera dictatorship came efctively [sic] to power in 1921, that is 23 years after the ending of the war.”

You’re right. Primo de Rivera didn’t take power until well after the war was over. So let me quickly explain my reasoning here. The fractured, factious atmosphere that eventually erupted into the Spanish Civil War was largely the product of three related and successive events: the loss of Cuba in 1898, the Tragic Week in Barcelona in 1909, and the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera. The first convinced the elite that Spain could not survive the loss of the empire. The second was a product of an overly aggressive attempt to restore that empire in North Africa. And the third was the result of the inevitable failure of that policy. Rather than explain all this in the article, I summarized it in this way:

"For Spain, the conflict, thereafter referred to as “the Disaster,” contributed to the further weakening of the Restoration Government, the eventual rise of the Primo de Rivera dictatorship, and Spain’s military insignificance in the twentieth century"

I respect your criticism; and I can’t stop you from changing it. But I think it’s a fair and accurate statement.


"2.- The consequences of the war was effectively a social crisis among those conservative people still wanting to go back to the Spanish Empire times. But for others, it represented a chance to progress on claiming for a new order based on democracy. Unfortunatley, [sic] both sides collisionated [sic] on the Spanish Civil War 1936-39 when General Franco rebelled and seized power."

In general, I agree with you here. Indeed, the importance of the Civil War as the eventual clash between the two competing Spanish identities that arose from the ashes of 1898 is precisely why I chose to draw a straight line from the War of 1898 to the Primo Dictatorship.


"3.- Effectively the war supossed Spain to be realize that it was a secondary power on the World chessboard, but it also represented an opportunity to setup a support to the people asking for more freedom and lastly democracy. Also the chance for a representation to the nations that compose Spain, providing federalist powers to their territory, very similar to the US states organization."

This is a little difficult to follow; but from what I can understand, I don’t see how this relates to the statement in question. However, I do take some issue with your assertion that “democracy” was ever a popular ideal for either conservatives or progressives in early 20th-century Spain. While many paid lip service to the notion of “democracy,” few considered it very important. The Left valued economic stability, land reform, and workers' rights. The Right was more concerned with economic and structural stability.


"4.- So the outcome ballance [sic] for Spain was bad on territorial loss, but good on freedom and democracy terms."

Hmm. . . . See Above.

--JCWBB (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Spain was in deep crisis in the 1890s and if anything the War helped postpone its next crises--keeping the extremely expensive Empire was dragging the country down. In any case that's a topic for the history of Spain artricle, not a 90-day war article. Rjensen (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Wow!!!

You know, it’s just good etiquette to explain major revisions. So, since you’ve neglected to do it, I’ll try to help you out.


1. Including mention of the Virginius Affair is an excellent, and previously overlooked, addition to this article. As part of the lead, however, it’s out of place. I think you should consider moving it to the historical background section where it is much more relevant.


2. YOU WROTE: By 1897-98 American public opinion grew angier at reports of Spanish atrocities, and the mysterious sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor, Democrats and farmers especially pushed the government headed by President William McKinley, a Republican, into a war it did not want.

I have serious problems with this statement. Spelling and major grammatical errors notwithstanding, this statement is long, tortuous and leaves the uninformed reader confused about the order and importance of each of these events. Additionally, the implication that the US government and President McKinley were driven to war by rabid public opinion revives the old, tired, one-dimensional, nuance-devoid official explanation of the war. Since when has any government (democratic, dictatorial or otherwise) ever been pushed reluctantly into war by public opinion? Never!! Public opinion doesn’t start wars; governments use public opinion to legitimize them! This is a very important point that this statement ignores.


3. YOU WROTE: Although the main issue was Cuban independence, the ten-week war was fought in both the Caribbean and the Pacific.

Really? Was the “main issue” Cuban independence? For the Cuban insurgents, surely; but for whom else? There were many, sometimes competing “issues” that eventually resulted in war: economic, military, cultural, imperial, etc . . . I think what you mean to say is that Cuban independence was the “ostensible” motivation. And I’m pretty sure that this is what it said before.


4. YOU WROTE: The outcome was a decisive American victory, followed by temporary authority over Cuba and indefinite colonial authority over Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines ceded to the U.S. through the December 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris[7]—had long-range implications for both belligerents.

This sentence is also grammatically clumsy.


5. YOU WROTE: Spain, whose politics were highly unstable, managed to get rid of a very expensive empire with honor (the U.S. paid Spain $20 million).

I see where you’re going with this; but, the clause, “whose politics were highly unstable” is simply false. The Cánovas’ Restoration remains the longest period of political stability in Modern Spanish history. Yes, there were debates! Yes, the two parties rotated in and out of power pretty frequently (though, this was an integral part of the system). And yes, it was much more of a democracy on paper than in practice. But to say that it was “highly unstable” is just demonstrably false. It was extremely stable.


If my comments seem harsh, it’s only because you made some dramatic, poorly substantiated, and clumsy revisions without bothering to explain them in the talk pages. That’s just poor form. And, in this way, you’ve reduced the lead back to the poor state it was in before.

I think you should remember that the only thing that gives Wikipedia a modicum of respectability are the vigorous debates that occur in the discussion pages over issues and revisions. You’ve successfully degraded this article by skipping that all too important step.

I won’t change your edits because, for one, I don’t want an edit war on this page; and, because I’ve become entirely too frustrated with the boorish way people go about vandalizing these articles. You, unfortunately, have demonstrated that you are a large part of this persistent problem. --JCWBB (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Some responses to JCWBB's thoughtful and useful commentary; i will ignore his unpleasant sarcasm and his inability to provide RS for his curious personal opinions about how history happens.
  • 1. The Virginius affair demonstrates longstanding public interest in Cuban revolution
  • 2. Public opinion re Cuba--most historians assign it the single most important motive force. It's far more than Yellow Journalism (which only reached readers in New York City). Numerous historians have shown that business and McKinley were reluctant and sought compromises from Spain that never worked out. It was Congress that declared the war, in response to very widespread demands. The Democrats/Bryanites and people like Mark Twain who in 1899 became anti-imperialists were the strongest war hawks. JCWBB has his personal view of world history that shows public opinion cannot have been effective, but he does not have much of a base in the RS. The article should cover the Proctor speech, which Offner sees as decisive: "Proctor's speech had an immediate and profound national impact; it especially moved the business community, religious organizations, and legislators. Before 17 March many business journals and spokesmen had been wary of the Cuban problem because they feared the consequences of a war with Spain. After the speech they joined the rest of the nation in support of American intervention to end Spanish rule in Cuba. The Literary Digest summed up the reversal: "With very few exceptions, the most conservative of newspapers now express the opinion that Senator Proctor's careful statement of conditions in Cuba . . . makes intervention the plain duty of the United States on the simple ground of humanity. . . . The situation in Cuba is actually intolerable." [Offner p 134]
  • 3. The main issue in spring 1898 when the war began was Cuban independence. The term is "main" and JCWBB misreads it as "only". He does not reveal what he considers the main issue, but hints that it is "economic, military, cultural, imperial, etc" -- that's pretty vague.
  • 4 . "grammatically clumsy" sentences indeed need fixing. I hope JCWBB has some suggestions.
  • 5. Spain's politics “were highly unstable” has been standard since Ernest May. JCWBB is unaware Canovas was assassinated in 1897 and left no clear direction for Spain; political instability dominated Spain in 1897-98. (Offner says: "Cánovas left the nation with a failed policy. His unrelenting support for Weyler in the face of limited results led to a growing discrepancy between claims for success and the actual situation. His own party was split, with Romero Robledo ardently behind Weyler and with Silvela calling for an end to the war. Moreover, the nation's top generals also offered divided counsel. The Liberal Party, withdrawn from the Cortes, had trumpeted an alternative program that was appealing to Spanish financiers." Unwanted War p 52) The new government under Azcárraga was short-lived. Offner has two chapters (4 and 5) on the unstable situation in Madrid in 1897-98. For example the Army was a major threat: "A retreat from Cuba, particularly under American pressure, was likely to touch off a political storm and perhaps even a military coup." (from Offner p 69) Rjensen (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)



Yet a bit more on this same subject; with, as per Rjensen’s request, a few sources and clarifications.

Well, it took some prodding, but you have managed to explain your edits. Had you done this before (or shortly after) making dramatic changes to the article I might have restrained some of that “unpleasant sarcasm.” I would have, however, still disagreed with many of your statements.


1. Your explicitness about the Virginius affair being relevant because it “demonstrates longstanding public interest in Cuban revolution” would appear to support my recommendation that it be moved to the Historical Background section. Despite your obstinacy, it certainly seems like we’re in agreement here.


2. You’ve done a good job of rhetorically overstating my argument (I'll take the blame for that); but I think you’ve gotten the gist of it. I don’t, as you say, believe that “public opinion cannot have been effective.” I do, however, firmly believe that the distinction between public opinion as a motivating factor and public opinion as a legitimizing salve is muddy at best. You seem to be of the opinion that you can clearly distinguish between these two. And, you’ll be happy to learn, you’re not alone in your interpretation. Indeed, it’s the most consistently repeated argument in the entire historiography of the war. Now, maybe I’m a little new to the discipline, but that alone makes me skeptical. But don't take my word for it. I recommend you take a look at Louis A. Pérez, The meaning of the Maine: Causation and the Historiography of the Spanish-American War, The Pacific Historical Review, 1989.


3. As a rhetorical tool, Cuban independence was certainly a “main issue,” as you say. As a goal of US policy, on the other hand, it was most certainly not. The word you’re looking for is “ostensible,” not “main.” And, as I explained, this is what the lead said before. As for me, I don’t believe there was a main issue. This is one of the things that continues to fascinate me about the war. As per your request, however, I’ll supply you will a little more clarity. Though, as you’ll see, my interests are weighted more heavily on the Spanish side. economic: Balfour, Sebastian. The End of the Spanish Empire, 1898-1923. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Tedde, Pedro, ed. Economía y Colonias en la España del 98. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis: Fundación Duques de Soria, 1999. political: Hilton, Sylvia L., “The Spanish-American War of 1898: Queries into the Relationship between the press, public opinion and politics.” REDEN (Revista Española de Estudios Norteamericanos), no. 7 (1994) 73-87 cultural: Balfour, Sebastian. “The Lion and the Pig: Nationalism and National Identity in Fin-de-Siécle Spain.” In Nationalism and the Nation in the Iberian Peninsula: Competing and Conflicting Identities edited by Clare Mar-Molinero and Angel Smith, 107-117. Oxford: Berg, 1996. Cubano-Iguina, Astrid. “Visions of Empire and Historical Imagination in Puerto Rico Under Spanish Rule, 1870-1898.” In Interpreting Spanish Colonialism: Empires, Nations, and Legends edited by Christopher Schmidt-Nowara and John M. Nieto-Phillips, 87-107. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005. Hoganson, Kristin L. Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. O’Connor, D. J. Representations of the Cuban and Philippine Insurrections on the Spanish Stage, 1887-1898. Tempe, Arizona: Bilingual Press, 2001. imperial: Boyd, Carolyn P. Historia Patria: Politics, History, and National Identity in Spain, 1875-1975. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Edwards, Rebecca. Angels in the Machinery: Gender in American Party Politics from the Civil War to the Progressive Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Fox, E. Inman. La invención de España: Nacionalismo liberal e identidad nacional. Madrid: Cátedra, 1997. Kaplan, Amy. The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Pike, Frederick. Hispanismo, 1898-1936: Spanish Conservatives and Liberals and Their Relations with Spanish America. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971.


4. I’ll see what I can do.


5. Thanks, but I’m well aware that Cánovas was assassinated; yet I fail to see the relevance. How does his assassination by an Italian anarchist demonstrate political instability in Spain? Stability was not the main reason for the Bourbon Restoration, Caquicismo, and the Turno Pacifico; it was the ONLY reason. Political stability is what Spain lacked from the death of Ferdinand VII until 1875. The Restoration system brought it and kept it. Like I said, it remains the longest period of political stability in modern Spanish history. Quoting Offner’s description of an internal party squabble during a tense period in Spanish history hardly detracts from this unmistakable fact. Indeed, what Offner seems to be doing is injecting a bit of contingency into the historical description of the political situation. And, he’s right, there was some contemporary uncertainty about whether the system could survive the death of Cánovas or, later, the loss of Cuba. But, as I’ve already said, it did. It survived both events by decades. That’s called stability. Though, if you insist on having a source, I recommend Paper Liberals by David Ortiz. --JCWBB (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

some further comments:
  1. 2 as Perez says, virtually all scholars say public opinion was a powerful force. That's the signal for Wikipedia coverage: Wiki presents the consensus of scholars. (Perez, by the way, does a poor job of providing any evidence for his own pet theory that McKinley was secretly motivated by fear the Cubans were about to win. Hundreds of historians have worked through the documents and he cannot find who agrees with his odd theory--and Perez ignores Canovas and all other Spanish leaders!).
  2. 3. The US and Spain (and the people in Cuba) were fixated on Cuban independence. That makes it the main issue. There was no main goal of US policy??? That line of thought leads to blank articles.
  3. 4. The assassination led to a series of short, unstable governments, with interference from the throne and the serious threat of a military coup hanging over everyone. Canovas left everyone mystified as to what his policy was, and no government was able to work out a coherent policy before it was replaced and none was able to get support from any European power. That political instability caused Madrid's inability to negotiate with the U.S., or withdraw (the coup treat) or to follow the advice from European powers. Rjensen (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Role of yellow journalism

It's claimed here that yellow journalism is acknowledged by "most historians" to be responsible for the conflict; in the article for yellow journalism that claim is shot down. The two articles ought to be made consistent.


I agree. The entire “Controversy” subsection is terrible and unnecessary. The limited importance of the yellow press is discussed in other parts of the article with more nuance.--JCWBB (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Path to War -

The sentence at the end of the 3rd paragraph under the section of "Path To War", first sub section of "Cuban Struggle for Independence), the article states: It can be argued that Senator Redfield Proctor’s March 17th, 1898 report to the U.S. Senate on the reconcentrados, personally witnessed during a fact-finding visit, was as much a cause for a war declaration as the sinking of the USS Maine.

This is not referenced. A reference should be added or the sentence should be removed. Also it should be rewritten to not use the weasel words "It can be argued." Beam 16:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The point about the effect of the speech on the war declaration fits better in the Declaring War subsection, where the speech is also mentioned. I've moved it there and provided a supporting cite. See this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede cleanup

This edit placed a {{cleanup section}} tag in the lede, with an inline comment reading, "recent edits deleted most of the usable lede, what's left reads like a personal blog". A look at the recent edit history shows that the changes at issue are probably the edits to the lede contained in these edits by User:RafaelMinuesa. The edits do introduce substantial change, removing previous cite-supported material and replacing it with other material. I've restored the edited lede to its previous state, and have moved the material which the edits introduced to the lede here for discussion.

Snippet one

The Spanish–American War was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement and it is believed to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism. Many newspapers were filling their pages with anti-Spanish propaganda and fabricating atrocities aimed at justifying intervention.

That was supported by a cite of David R. Spencer. The Yellow Journalism USA: Northwestern UP, 2007 (specific page numbers not given). That begs the conclusion that the yellow journalism pushed the U.S. into war, but I note that page 124 of the source cited appears to contradict the assertion, saying "There is considerable merit in blaming both Hearst's NewYork journal and Pulitzer's the World New York for playing fast and loose with the truth in their respective attempts to garner larger and larger circulations. But to assert that these two journalistic enterprises were capable of dragging a reluctant nation into battle is both misleading and erroneous."

snippet two

President McKinley was also quietly scheming to enter a war that would give America parity with its imperial rivals. He ordered Commodore Dewey to establish his fleet in Hong Kong so that the Spanish fleet at Manila Bay could be quickly destroyed, long before there were any hostilities.

After the mysterious sinking of the American battleship Maine in Havana harbor, tensions grew to the point where Spain broke off diplomatic relations in anticipation of an invasion of her colonies. Nevertheless Spain, aware of the huge difference in military power, had began to make concessions hoping to avoid war, but McKinley ratcheted up his demands in a way that Spain could not meet them in time. Rather than asking Congress for a declaration of war, McKinley asked them “to declare that, since Spain had broken off diplomatic relations, a state of war already existed.”

Although the main issue was Cuban independence, the ten-week war was fought in both the Caribbean and the Pacific and was notable for a series of one-sided American naval and military victories. As planned, Dewey moved in for an attack on the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, a task accomplished easily two days later without a single combat loss among Dewey’s forces.

The outcome by late 1898 was the Treaty of Paris which was favorable to the U.S., followed by American control of Cuba and indefinite colonial annexation of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

The defeat and subsequent end of the Spanish Empire was a profound shock for Spain's national psyche, who felt betrayed by the American "amigo". The victor gained several island possessions spanning the globe and a rancorous new debate over the wisdom of imperialism.

A cite of George C. Herring, From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign relations since 1776 (2008) ch. 8 was present at the end of the final paragraph there. As I read pages 308-309 in that source, it would support an assertion that the author wrote about an atmosphere of expansionism in McKinley's government, but don't see support for characterizing this as McKinley scheming to enter a war. This source is uncited about the Yellow press, but page 311 remarks, "The yellow press undoubtedly contributed to the war spirit, but Americans in areas where it did not circulate also strongly sympathized with Cuba." The cited source seems to be silent Spain breaking relations as asserted in the second added para nor the assertion that McKinley used that as a pretext for declaring war (the declaring war section of the article explains that Spain declared war first, and the U.S. responded with its own declaration). The addition of "As planned" re Dewey's victory is an unsupported assertion -- I'm no expert on this, but I haven't seen any support anywhere that the Battle of Manila Bay had been planned in advance beyond what tactical planning was done by Dewey. The last couple of paragraphs of the addition don't seem to be directly supported by the cited source but I have seen that content supported elsewhere except that the phrase "American control of Cuba" should be preceded by the word "temporary". In sum, it seems to me that some of the above material might find its way into the article, even into the lede, but not in the form or the manner in which the edits added it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Consequences section?

I think that, like in every other war article, a consequences section is important, and more with this war that had pretty massive consequences. US gained the control over the Caribbean, becoming a world power. Spanish civil wars from 1900 to 1940 were pretty much because of this war. In the case of Cuba, we all know the goverments it has had since 1925, with 2 dictatorships, the last of which has not ended. 213.98.232.43 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Farmers....?!

The lead paragraph currently reads:

"By 1897-98 ... Democrats and farmers especially pushed the government headed by President William McKinley, a Republican, into a war McKinley wished to avoid."

Farmers...?!
Wikiscient (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a political party. In Minnesota they, along with a third party, joined the democratic party to form the DFL, Democratic - farmer - laborer party. --71.214.221.164 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Films

The Library of Congress has some films of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine-American War available online. These were made in 1899 by the Biograph and Edison companies -- some aredocumentary footage shot in the Philippines and some 1899ish reinactments). For more info, see The Motion Picture Camera Goes to War : Films from the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Revolution on the LOC website. Searching separately for edison spanish film and biograph spanish film here (check U.S. Historical, Cultural Collections, uncheck the rest) will find a list of the films. Clicking individual titles will bring up an info page about the film, accessed via a very long search URL. Those pages include links to videos of the films with sensible URLs (examples: http://memory.loc.gov/mbrs/sawmp/1031.mpg, http://memory.loc.gov/mbrs/sawmp/0402.mpg). It seems to me that it might be useful to include a section about these films in this article, along with links to access the material. I haven't worked out a good presentation format for this (hence the complicated explanation here), and thought I would mention it here in case someone else wants to do that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisionist naming and scope

Hmm... I came here to see what Wikipedia had to say about the naming of the war, and the answer turns out to be very little. The note currently states, "Some recent historians[who?]<!-- must reflect consensus rather than fringe --> prefer a broader title to encompass the fighting in Cuba and the Philippine Islands. Here "Spanish-American War" refers to the war between Spain and the U.S in 1898." First, there are multiple items in the References and Further reading sections that refer to it as the "War of 1898" - a name I'm not especially fond of, but I can think of at least one current textbook (WW Norton's America: A Narrative History) that uses it as well. Second, criticism of the term goes back to at least 1972 off the top of my head, because that's when Philip S. Foner wrote The Spanish-Cuban-American War and the Birth of American Imperialism. Third, there should be a legitimate discussion of the problematic nature of the nomenclature rather than simply a footnote about "We're talking about the US and Spain here." I may come back to fix this later, but I wanted to leave a note in case anyone else has any thoughts. Recognizance (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem as though Spanish–American War is the most common name, at least in the English-speaking world. However, a good few WP articles have sections on nomenclature so there's no reason why this article shouldn't have one, as long as it's NPOV and doesn't grow so big as to have undue weight. Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in the lead

I find this sentence in the lead confusing for a number of reasons:

  • Compromise proved impossible after the ultimatum; Spain would not abandon the island, hence declaring the war on April 23, 1898; the U.S. Congress on April 25 declared the official opening as April 21, when the blockade of Cuba had effectively started.

First of all, there has been no prior mention of "the ultimatum", only of the Democratic party "pushing the government into a war". The next bit suggests that the refusal of Spain to withdraw was a tacit declaration of war, while the main body of the article says there was an overt declaration. Finally, "Congress declared the official opening as April 21" suggests some sort of ribbon-cutting ceremony, which I presume is not what was intended. I don't want to re-write this myself, as I could easily get it wrong. Can somebody else clarify? Scolaire (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

good point. I tried to rewrite and simplify it. Rjensen (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that does make it more readable. But it leads to another couple of questions. "...first Madrid then Washington formally declared war" is a wonderfully concise statement for the purposes of the lead, so do we need the rest of the sentence in the lead at all? And why is there no mention in the article proper of the blockade starting on April 21? Scolaire (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I've dealt with both of these myself. Maybe you could check that I did it right. Scolaire (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath section

-The first sentence of the Aftermath section reads: "The press showed Northerners and Southerners, blacks and whites fighting against a common foe[citation needed], helping to ease the scars left from the American Civil War." This is not an entirely accurate presentation of racial attitudes in the US during or after the Spanish American War. Many African Americans were dissatisfied by the actions of the US toward both Cuba and the Philippines during and, especially, after the war. The discriminatory practices of the armed services were frequently highlighted in African American newspapers, as were the lynchings in the US at the time. The general sense of black Americans was that the United States government was hypocritical, supporting humanitarian intervention in the Carribbean and pacific while denying protection of basic rights to African Americans at home. For more on this, see George Marks III, Black Press Views American Imperialism (1898-1900); Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., Black Americans and the White Man's Burden, 1898-1903; Karin L. Stanford, If We Must Die: African American Voices on War and Peace; and various writings by Henry McNeal Turner, WEB DuBois, and others. At the very least, the first sentence of this section needs to be changed to reflect this. The Spanish-American War was not a unity-building exercise as the sentence claims, nor did it do anything to ease racial tensions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumrunner71 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents - add a US ally

Please add the Tagalog Republic, which assisted the US in the Philippines.--Samusaran253 (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish American War

The article states it occured in 1998. Isn't it supposed to be 1898? There are a couple of typo's - '1900' used instead of '1800' dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.68.145 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a brief transient due to vandalism. You can revert such things yourself. Look at the history... Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yellow journalism and the war

Re this edit, I'm limited to sources accessible online, and so have not seen Smythe, etc (2003). I did some looking around, however and found Tucker, Spencer (2009), The encyclopedia of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars: a political, social, and military history, ABC-CLIO, pp. 514, ISBN 978-1-85109-951-1, which lists the 2003 Smythe etc. book as further reading and says, "While it is not at all accurate to say that media-inspired propaganda alone pushed the United States into war in April 1898, it did make that decision considerably easier." The assertion that historians no longer consider yellow journalism the major force shaping the national mood looks to me as if it might overstate that and/or might be dated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

you can read Smythe at amazon.com and I recommend that. Yellow Journalism at the time = 2 newspapers in New York; newspapers all across the country were involved in discussions of the war and probably most supported war, but they were sober not the sensationalistic "Yellow" style. The "propaganda" Tucker refers to is the atrocities stories produced by the Cubans. Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of my edit mostly reverting a good faith edit.

I've mostly reverted this good faith edit, which had the edit summary "Expand and clarify lead; add details on some of the battles".

  • In the lead, the edit inserted an editorial observation that the war was "... effectively the result of American intervention in the Cuban War of Independence and Philippine Revolution." There may be some merit to that, moreso re Cuba than re the Philippines, but that would need support and the placement of this assertion in the lead sentence strikes me as WP:UNDUE.
  • The edit inserts an assertion re yellow fever which is not supported by presently-cited sources. I haven't dug into this very much, but I have the impression that this has merit, but much moreso in re Cuba that in re the Philippines.
  • The edit asserts that a Spanish fleet was denied passage at the Suez canal. My understanding is that this fleet was recalled after passing through the canal. See [1][2], [link to web site, the https version of which has an invalid security certificate, removed by Jc3s5h August 4, 2017], etc.
  • I've left the added assertion re the Generation of '98 in, and have added a supporting source.
I find myself reluctantly preparing to mostly revert your good-faith revert while applying the (welcome) factual corrections you've volunteered:
  • I've rephrased to distinguish between Cuba and the Philippines, where "intervention" was simply the result of striking at Spain's Pacific possessions. But omitting this statement entirely strikes me as a pretty egregious breach of the the global perspective, considering that over the summer of 98 the Cubans and Filipinos were doing most of the actual fighting and dying. The fact that the United States intervened in Cuba's war of independence cannot possibly be WP:UNDUE for the simple fact that it happens to be, in a nutshell, the central understanding of the war and something that's discussed at length in the body of the article (and let's be honest: just about every scholarly treatment of the war will make the same point. No one out there is suggesting that the war occurred in an historical vacuum.) You want to prune some WP:UNDUE? Try the American party politics or McKinley's own feelings about the war.
  • The Cuba yellow fever deaths are cited as 13,000 in the Infobox; this of course covers only May–August 1898 and total figures for the Cuban campaign are truly staggering. But let's not quibble: the claim here is about the severe wastage of the Spanish armies and just about any source will corroborate this in one form or another. I can remove the reference to yellow fever but it's important to note Spain's deplorable situation (losing hundreds of thousands) if only to account for the stunning rapidity of the conflict—10-week wars are not all that common.
  • You are correct about de la Cámara's squadron, which was actually denied coaling rights in Egyptian territorial waters and given an ultimatum to depart. This slowed its progress enough for Madrid to recall the squadron following news of Cervera's ill-fated sortie from Santiago. Having said that, I can only insist on the necessity of the statement as a whole: the destruction of Spain's naval forces was the overriding reason Madrid sued for peace when it did.

Thanks & let me know what you think. Albrecht (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Granted, it would have been better for me to have used a scalpel instead of a meat axe.
  • re "effectively the result of American intervention in the Cuban War of Independence and Philippine Revolution", I don't think the situation re Cuba is comparable with the situation re the Philippines. The revolution in the Philippines was in a period of truce. The Pact of Biak na Bato had been signed, the senior revolutionary leadership had gone into exile in Hong Kong and Singapore. Some revolutionaries were continuing the struggle, but the steam had gone out of the revolution. U.S. involvement in the Philippines was, AFAICT, incidental to the war with Spain and was not undertaken as an act of intervention in the Philippine revolution. Dewey probably wouldn't have been in Hong Kong when the war began if Navy Secretary John Long hadn't taken an afternoon off one day and left Teddy Roosevelt at the helm of the Navy Department. Roosevelt ordered the Asiatic Squadron to Hong Kong on his own hook (see this pp.80-81 here and pp.57-58 here). IMO, the reference to the Philippine Revolution in the lead sentence implies a connection between the Philippine Revolution and the Spanish-American War which just wasn't there pre-war (though there is this, and there still is disagreement about who said what at various times and places, and with what authority).
  • re "allowing U.S. expeditionary forces to disembark in Cuba and the Philippines, where the Spanish garrisons were already under tremendous pressure from nation-wide insurgent attacks and wasted by yellow fever.", Dewey had no land forces with him; that's what led to Aguinaldo's reinvolvement. The VIII Corps (PE) was formed in the U.S. to provide a ground contingent to exploit Dewey's success. In the meantime, Aguinaldo (transported to Manila by Dewey at the suggestion of U.S. Consul Pratt in Singapore) restarted his revolution. Also, as far as I know, Yellow Fever wasn't a big problem in Spanish garrisons in the Philippines -- and the only garrison of any real interest was Intramuros. I gather from this that it was a big problem mainly in Cuba. How about removing mention of the Philippines in the sentence about disembarking?
  • re the deletion in "good performance of some of the Spanish infantry units", the cited supporting source seems to say that there was no good performance. Only the strikeout came from your edit, but how about removing the assertion re good performance unless it can be supported? indicates that good performance of Spanish infantry units in Cuba was spotty.
In sum, I think your changes introduced too much conflation of the situations in Cuba and the Philippines. I think the changes I've suggested above would improve that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Spanish additude

There are two confusing sentences in this section:

  1. "The island not only brought prestige to Spain, but it was also one of the most prosperous Spanish territories, just like it treated the rest of the Americas." I don't understand the "just like it treated the rest of the Americas" part. Spain treated the rest of the Americas as its most prosperous territory? The first two clauses of the sentence make sense together. The third just seems to come out of nowhere and make no sense given the context of the first two.
  2. "In fact, Spain had taken so much from the island that it would require several decades to recover economically from the shock." It's completely unclear which region took several decades to recover. Was it Spain that suffered because of the shock of losing the island, or was it Cuba that suffered because of the shock of losing what "Spain had taken so much" of? It's also unclear what the "shock" is. If "it" means Spain, is the "shock" referring to losing the island? In the context, Spain has yet to lose the island so I'm not even sure it makes sense to mention this here. Maybe this would be better: "In fact, Spain had taken so much from Cuba that it would require several decades for Spain to recover economically from the shock of losing the island territory." or "In fact, Spain had taken so much from Cuba that it would require several decades for the island to recover economically from the shock of losing so many resources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.31.249 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Recently added Espinosa cites

In these edits, User:Homeworkaccount123 has recently added a significant amount of material. In this material, two new sources are cited:

Also, sprinkled throughout the added material are page-numbered references to Espinosa sources in a format looking something like Harvard references. However, these references do not differentiate between these two added Espinosa sources. Can someone familiar with the Espinosa sources please add differentiating information? The {{Harvnb}} template is commonly used to do this (e.g., Espinosa 2006, pp. 541–2) or Espinosa 2009, pp. 541–2). Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I will look into making these changes to help get my work published. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeworkaccount123 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

yellow fever

I believe I fixed the style problems in this post. Also the point of it is to explain how yellow fever was a driving force behind the Spanish America War. The historical backround is meant to show how the Southern States had outbreaks of the disease which killed people and shut down trade in major cities. The next part is meant two sections are meant to prove my overall point by giving facts about how America dealt with the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeworkaccount123 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; please capitalize first words of headings. And WP is not a place where one proves things; if this is your original research, publish it somewhere first, then summarize and reference it here. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Homework, I'm generally limited to online sources, and haven't seen the two Espinosa sources you cite. Do those sources explicitly conclude that Yellow Fever was a driving force behind the Spanish America War? I'm no expert on this, but, as I understand it from other sources (sketchy description):
  • in the time leading up to the S-A War, the U.S. had a history of YF epidemics but did not at that time have a serious problem with the disease
  • the disease became a problem for US troops in Cuba
  • targeted recruitment of troops from southern states thought to have acquired YF immunity was done
  • (gleaned from the Yellow Fever article) Carlos Finlay, a Cuban doctor and scientist, first proposed in 1881 that yellow fever might be transmitted by mosquitoes rather than direct human contact. Since the losses from yellow fever in the Spanish–American War were extremely high, Army doctors began research experiments with a team led by Walter Reed, composed of doctors James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse William Lazear. They successfully proved Finlay's ″Mosquito Hypothesis″. Yellow fever was the first virus shown to be transmitted by mosquitoes.
  • After a series of experiments in which Army volunteers were deliberately infected, Reed proved conclusively that the Aedes aegypti mosquito was the carrier.
  • Major William Gorgas then began a campaign to eradicate the insect in Cuba, and within a year there were no yellow fever cases in Havana for the first time in over a hundred years.
Here are some sources picked for information content more than for solidity of reliability: the Yellow Fever article, and relevant sources drawn therefrom, plus [3], [4], [5]
If you are offering the assertion that Yellow Fever was a driving force behind the Spanish America War as a novel theory challenging the mainstream view, you will need to cite reliable sources which explicitly support this assertion, and to give your assertion due weight in this article as described in WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Espinosa articles are academic sources that can be found through academic portals which are usually require paid access or a University enrollment. Yes he concludes that Yellow fever was a driving force behind the U.S intervention and through other sources i try to prove that point. It has been over looked for along time and many historians who focus on Cuba will deny it however I am only using facts and not opinion and as a result others can form opinions on the subject themselves. Which I believe is atleast part of what Wikipedia wants its editors to achieve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeworkaccount123 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Finlay was not able to prove his hypothesis because he did not wait for an incubation period before testing an infected mosquito on a human subject. Also why do you think Walter Reed and other disease specialists were there in the first place? Or why U.S revenue cutters were outfitted as mobile quarantine zones. These facts when looked at all together help describe the seriousness of Yellow fever as a threat to the Southern United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeworkaccount123 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that historians find Espinosa's argument badly flawed. The US government did NOT behave in 1898 as if Yellow fever was a major concern. Read the Journal of Southern History which states: "Epidemic Invasions does fall short in making a solid case that the Spanish American War and the subsequent spread of American imperialism in the Caribbean and Pacific were outcomes of a renewed public-health consciousness in the United States. Aside from the urgings of southem congressmen from constituencies directly affected by yellow fever, Americans were generally sympathetic and charitable toward Cubans in the face of the Spanish army's reconcentrado policy. When yellow fever did appear in mainstream public discourse before April 1898, it was discussed in terms of avoiding the fate of past invasions of the island. The lack of contingency planning for invasion and the low priority given to sanitary and medical support during the operation tend to undermine the case for a war promoted and planned in response to the potential spread of disease to American shores." [J So. History Feb 2012 p197] Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This looks like it's not a matter of who finds what argument flawed to which degree but, rather, a matter for WP:DUE ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."). The question appears to be whether the Espinosa articles are published in sources considered reliable, and the relative prominence of those articles vs. differing articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I read the J Southern History article again. It is good on the disease and how it spreads, but is very weak on linking Yellow Fever & the 1898 War for 6 reasons: 1) He admits that historians never mention the connection. (p 542 says: " However, historians have failed to note the influence of yellow fever in the South on U.S. international relations.") 2) The great debate in 1898 when the war fever peaked is passed over in silence. 3) The failure of the War Department to take preventive action against the fever is not mentioned. 4) The only quote that links the war comes from a speech by came from a Congressman in 1901--but he was not in Congress in 1898 when the debate took place, and he does not say it was a cause but a retrospective justification for war. (Congressman Scudder said, quote p 565, "One of the chief reasons which justified this country's intervention to rescue Cuba from Spanish misrule is to be found in the fact that the deplorable sanitary condition of the island made it a dangerous nuisance. It was like having an open cesspool opposite one's front door. The thing had to be abated." 5) All of Espinosa's other quotes come well before the 1898 debate and NONE of them ever mention war as a solution. 6) nor does he say that anyone recommended any military action on the basis of yellow fever. Bottom line: no contemporary at the time and no historian today (except of course Espinosa) argues that the Yellow Fever issue helped cause the war. That makes it a fringe viewpoint. (it can all be said in one footnote.) Rjensen (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a topical expert but, from what I have read, that's my impression as well. As I said, It's not a matter of who is right or wrong but rather a matter of due weight by WP:DUE criteria for deciding that. If Espinosa's viewpoint is mentioned prominently in reliable sources, it probably ought to be mentioned in WP; if not, it probably should not. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It deserves a small section discussing this variant POV of a one or a few historians, not 11 KB. Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should change my article so it does not set up yellow fever as the cause of the war but a problem that persisted during the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeworkaccount123 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So... I was told that my article does not fit in because Espinosa's argument was not accepted among other historians which is wrong. I will be proving this with different reviews. I am in the middle of exams at the moment so it may take a while but I will. Here is a start http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948702/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeworkaccount123 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Here Is another one http://ahr.oxfordjournals.org/content/116/2/490.extract It is not very hard to find the positive reviews for his book. This is a new way of looking at the Spanish American War.

the reviews are by medical historians who are not RS on the diplomatic history. They give one sentence to the issue and simply repeat the author. They are much more interested in the other parts of the book (which are not at issue). And the reviewers garble the argument-- the first one says that Yellow fever was a motivation of Congress in 1898, but the author dies not make that claim. Rjensen (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Professor at Yale University: http://www.yale.edu/history/faculty/espinosa_m.html I am giving you this because I believe it shows she is an academic and will help "give weight" to her argument. Review: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660242 -This review states that Espinosa was persuasive in her argument. That being that Yellow fever was a influential, yet quiet, reason behind the Spanish American War. If this is still not enough let me know! Also I have to ask why is the fact that they were Medical Historians a problem? This is very much a topic for Medical Historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeworkaccount123 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That review does not even contain the word "war" in it, so is not strong support for concluding that yellow fever was a reason for the war. Generally, your 11 KB section gives way too much weight to one author's POV. It needs to be trimmed to about 1KB, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Unrecognized belligerents

I'm not sure whether or not this edit will be controversial. The changes are:

  • Fixed Ref tags so as to reuse one ref definition for name="unrecognized"
  • Removed an isolated Ref from the infobox
  • Expanded "Unrecognized" to "Unrecognized as participants by the primary belligerants"
  • Removed Puerto Rico as a named belligerent (also, and by similar reasoning, did not add Guam as a named belligerent)
  • Wikilinked Philippine Republic instead of Philippines (piped to appear named as Republic of the Philippines)

My rationale is that Republic of Cuba and the Philippine Republic were belligerents against Spain, but were unrecognized as belligerents in this conflict by either Spain or the U.S. Puerto Rico and Guam were Spanish territories defending under the Spanish flag against the U.S. belligerent. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

", revealing American interest ..."

In this edit, I've removed a snippet saying, ", revealing American interest in both Cuba and Spain's Pacific territories of Guam and the Philippines" from the lead section. In some quick checking I've seen this being added to and removed from the article in a number of past edits, apparently as a side effect of other changes (e.g., see [6]).

There appears to have been such interest in some parts of the U.S. government -- Teddy Roosevelt, who had ordered Dewey's squadron to Hong Kong, certainly appears to have been interested. However, I'm wondering if recognition of that interest is expressed by the supporting source cited here; the snippet quoted from that source in the supporting citation doesn't support that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

we have hundreds of letters by Theodore Roosevelt from this period, and none mention any interest in Guam or the Philippines before the war started. He was a naval strategist, and his focus was on the Spanish fleet at Manila. The goal was to sink the fleet, which Dewey achieved. Rjensen (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
On a more practical note, we've already devoted roughly 1/4 of the lede to the domestic American political context; any more risks giving those issues undue weight (obviously a certain detailed treatment is warranted, since this article focuses specifically on the American intervention, but the nature and course of the conflict was also conditioned by social and political events elsewhere). Albrecht (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Democratic Peace Theory

Is it worth noting that this war is often listed as a counter-example to the Democratic Peace Theory? I think that, at least in the case of the UK-Finland conflict, it is mentioned on the relevant page, but didn't want to add it without checking first. NJHartley (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

food poisoning due to defective cannining and the american

I remember reading somewhere that Theater Roosevelt signed into law the Federal Meat Inspection Act partly because he remembered how a lot of solders in the Spanish American war died from food poisoning due to badly canned meat sold to the army. Does anyone have any reference to badly canned meat and food poisoning killing a lot of american soliders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.207.120.212 (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

USS Maine sinking

It's unbeliveable what I read at the end of this title. Please read the spanish version of this article and take your own conclusions. I would strongly advice a small enlargement regarding studies on this issue, since the writing may lead many people to a severely biased opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda display case.

Ok...... So what is unbelievable? Can you please clarify for the sake of ease of editing? As well as sign your comments? Because this little snippet does nothing to help but tell the world that you think something is unbelievable. Hum-hm, that's great but it isn't going to help evaluating or (if necessary) fixing it. ELV 75.36.166.243 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible US Navy photos

Click here for newly-released photos of the Spanish-American war, published by the US Navy, so no copyright issues. FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic photos (see also [7]). At least one[8] seems doubtful as a work produced by employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment. The ones on Flickr (including that one) are annotated by them as "(CC by 2.0)", though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes I had that same thought about the photo of the Spanish sailors. Maybe the photo was obtained by the US Navy afterwards? Either way, all photos should probably pass Commons copyright issues since they're before 1900.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

US-Withdraw.

This section ends "Still, when the Ninth left, 73 of its 984 soldiers had contracted the disease." But it never states when this withdraw happened. Nitpyck (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

who's a prominent/specialist historian/professor in the Philippines on this war?

I'm going there soon, and have a large folio of photos taken by my grandfather, Endre Johannes Cleven during his service with the US Army there in 1898-99; not sure of his discharge date, but he was back in Norway en route to Canada by 1900 so I don't think he stuck around for the Philippine-American War. I'd like some help if I can find it tracing his regiment's activities, and also nailing down the locations, and will undertake to photograph them as they are now as a project. I think the gallery is here but I have login issues to do with a bad clock on my motherboard so flickr won't let me see that for now.Skookum1 (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To editor Skookum1: You might have better luck getting advice from people who post on genealogy/family history sites or perhaps sites for US Army veterans. Since Wikipedia is not focused on primary sources (see WP:PSTS), people with research experience in such sources, which are the ones you probably need, aren't as likely to visit here and even less likely to contribute here, in my experience.
When you post at such places, I'd ask for "advice or help." Just asking for help makes it sound a little like you're focusing on finding someone to work through stuff directly with you, and while that would be great, even tips on where to look can be helpful.
If that doesn't work and you're in the Phillipines, I'd go to a university and (assuming you're in an English-speaking area or know the local language—WP says the official languages are Filipino and English, with 19 recognized regional languages) ask around the history department and the library and library sciences department.
Good luck! I hope this helps somewhat. --Geekdiva (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't the place for it (see WP:TPG and WP:NOT) but I'll briefly mention that the National Library of the Philippines and the National Historical Commission of the Philippines are located within easy walking distance of one another in Rizal Park. However, some googling turned up this source which says, "The 203rd New York Volunteer Infantry served its term of service within the continental U.S. during the Spanish American War." (and does list Private Cleven, Endre J.). Also see [9]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll be in the Philippines again soon (I'm in Cambodia for now) so will go look up those libraries; and yes I'd seen that about the 203rd before; but he was a medic/medical photographer and US Army Musical Corps so maybe not part of the regular 203rd as such i.e. not combat troops. He was discharged in the Philippines for sure though. I know about WP:TPG and WP:NOT (long-experienced editor) but was having no luck online or in asking Filipinos I know what they might know of who to ask. A lot of what's in the album is certainly of training camps in the US, though.Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Roosevelt listed as a leader?

If I recall correctly Roosevelt was a Lt. Colonel under Leonard Wood. First, does it make sense to list someone as a leader in a major war who was only a LTC? Second, does it make sense to list him and not list the then Full Bird Wood, who became a celebrated general in his own right?

I understand that Roosevelt became president and won the nobel prize and so forth, but little of that had to do with the Spanish American war. He would have arguably been in more of a senior leadership position if he had retained his position as undersecretary of the Navy. The whole thing seems a bit like listing Corporal Hitler as a leader in WWI solely because he went on later to do big important things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.37.2 (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Errors in Photographic Editing

The photographic editing is wrong.

Please check the masts and crows nests in each image.

KJC1973 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Cession of the Philippines and $20 million payment by the U.S.

This edit caught my eye. I don't have a problem with the edit but I don't follow the edit summary ("No mention of $20 million-payout for ceding Spanish imperial territory. Hence the term, 'cede'") and I'm concerned that confusion might develop in the absence of clarifying information. Some points:

  • Spain did cede the Philippines to the U.S. -- the word "cedes" appears explicitly in Article III of the Treaty of Paris (1898) (later TofP) which ended the war.[1]
  • In a paragraph of that treaty article separate from the paragraph re the cession, the U.S. agreed to pay Spain $20M. The TofP does not spell out the reason for the paymant.[1]
  • Many sources (e.g., [10], [11]) support this without drawing conclusions about the connectedness or lack thereof between the cession and the payment.
  • Some sources (e.g., [12], [13], [14] characterize this as Spain selling the Philippines to the U.S.; generally without explaining this characterization.
  • One source [15] explains, "The nature of this payment is rather difficult to define; it was paid neither to purchase Spanish territories nor as a war indemnity. In the words of Historian Leon Wolff, 'It was ... a gift. Spain accepted it. ...". (see Wolff, Leon (1961). Little Brown Brother: How the United States Purchased and Pacified the Philippine Islands at the Century's Turn. Wolff Productions. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-1-58288-209-3.)
  • (added) Another source ([16]) says that cession of the Philippines involved payment of $20 million ($732,480,000 today) to Spain by the US to cover infrastructure owned by Spain.

WP:NPOV should be exercised by WP editors in asserting any connectedness or lack of connectedness between the cession and the payment. If assertions about this appear in WP articles, WP:DUE should be the guiding policy point. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If the payment were unrelated to the rest of article III, one would suppose it would be a separate article. As worded, it concludes article III, and is part of that article. The unsuspecting reader of the Treaty is left unaware of diverse interpretations, and left to assume that it is related. TEDickey (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The treaty is a primary source. Your argument above grows from your interpretation of that primary source. WP:PRIMARY, part of the WP:NOR policy, says in part, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Secondary sources which provide interpretations re the connectedness or lack thereof between the cession and the payment differ in the viewpoints they express. WP:DUE, part of the WP:NPOV policy describes how a situation with separate reliable sources expressing differing viewpoints should be handled. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is pointless: you are free to add the sources of your choice, with whatever interpretation you find interesting to the TofP topic. bye. TEDickey (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
There's good brief coverage of what happened at Benjamin R. Beede (2013). The War of 1898 and U.S. Interventions, 1898T1934: An Encyclopedia. p. 289.. The $20 million was part of the negotiating process and nominally was given to cover the cost of infrastructure that Spain owned, such as buildings and port facilities. Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I see that you have WP:BOLDly edited the article to reflect the viewpoint of that source, and only that viewpoint. I have seen that viewpoint mentioned elsewhere, and it sounds reasonable to me. I've added it to my list of sourced viewpoints above -- I would have listed it previously but it didn't come up in the quick googling I did to put the list together. I wasn't able to find that book at your provided link ([17]) but did find it at [18], and page 289 there does say that the US peace commissioners recommended to Washington that the $20M be presented as covering the cost of public improvements which had been made by Spain.
I acknowledge that you are a credentialed historian, and that I am not (though I am fairly well read up on Philippine history in Spanish and American colonial times).
However, that said, it is not Wikipedia's policy to reflect the viewpoint which is put forth by a source favored by a particular WP editor or by a group of WP editors if that viewpoint is at variance with viewpoints put forth by other sources considered to be RSs. WP:DUE sets out Wikipedia policy (shouting -- sorry) regarding this, saying, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
What we have here is one source (Beede's 1898 encyclopedia) That explicitly explains what happened. With multiple other sources that do not offer a a viewpoint or alternative analysis or explanation, but which seem to be puzzled or befuddled. in a nutshell We have only one explanation, and that is what we should report. Rjensen (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/sp1898.asp

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spanish–American War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

sourchecked=fail – Wayback reports error for that URL

Anachronisms re the First Philippine Republic

I want to observe here that wikilinks to the First Philippine Republic article (as e.g., {{flagicon|First Philippine Republic}} [[First Philippine Republic|Philippine Republic]], {{flagicon|First Philippine Republic}} [[Emilio Aguinaldo]], etc.) in this article are anachronistic. The Spanish-American War ran from April 24 or 25 to December 10, 1898. The First Philippine Republic was was proclaimed on January 22, 1899. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference to African Americans

Black people in Cuba in the 1890's were not "African Americans". That is a modern, PC term used to speak about black Americans only. People of African ancestry are not African Americans unless they are citizens of the USA. 208.49.194.162 (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spanish–American War. 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:

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) 18:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

A previous version of List of battles of the Spanish–American War contained an infobox with content different from the one in this article. I am not sure which version is correct, but would the editors of this article kindly take a look and make updates as needed?

Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Without trying to figure out the technicalities, I'll guess that this has something to do with Cambaignboxes.
  • I see that the infobox in this article mentions
  • {{Campaignbox Spanish American War Theaters}}, which mentions
  • [[Template:Campaignbox Spanish-American War: Pacific|The Philippines]], which mentions
  • |battles= * [[Battle of Manila Bay|Manila Bay]] * [[Siege of Santa Cruz de la Laguna|Santa Cruz]] * [[Capture of Guam|Guam]] * [[Siege of Baler|Baler]] * [[Battle of Manila (1898)|Manila]]
  • [[Template:Campaignbox Spanish-American War: Pacific|Guam]], which I have not examined
  • {{Campaignbox Banana Wars}}, which I have not examined
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh -- in the infobox, where it says V*I*E Spanish–American War [show], etc., click [ show ]. That is probably supposed to be obvious. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spanish–American War. 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:

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) 06:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed an Error. May be missing Info that was there before error

Somebody edited the article and made a reference to Donald Trump(who was not yet born) and Mexicans(and this article is about Spain). Their comment was about Trump's plan for a wall. I am no expert on this subject, but I do know this has no relation to the subject. I deleted the irrelevant information, but it might have used to say something more. If so, please re-add it. It is in the blue box to the right with the quick information on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.178.63 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The reference was added by a vandal and has been removed/fixed by another user. Sakura CarteletTalk 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Spanish–American War. 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:

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) 01:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Making peace

I noticed today that the Making peace section asserted, "The United States gained all of Spain's colonies outside of Africa in the treaty, including the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico with the exception of Cuba, which became a U.S. protectorate.", citing this in support. I don't find support there for "all of Spain's colonies outside of Africa". In particular, I'm wondering about the Caroline Islands, the Spanish colony section of WP article about which asserts in part, "After the Spanish–American War of 1898, Spain sold the Carolines and Marianas to Germany in the German–Spanish Treaty (1899) for 25 million pesetas or 17 million goldmark (nearly 1,000,000 pounds sterling), [...]". I've changed the article assertion to read, "The United States gained Spain's colonies of the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico in the treaty, and Cuba became a U.S. protectorate." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

loc.gov - Spanish–American War Motion Pictures of the Edison Companies

Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Change from:

On April 25, Congress declared that a state of war between the US and Spain and had de facto existed since April 21, the day the blockade of Cuba had begun.

to:

On April 25, Congress declared that a state of war between the US and Spain had de facto existed since April 21, the day the blockade of Cuba had begun. ToastedLion (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Conservapedia-Lite

The usual crap about America getting involved for altruistic reasons, I see. Hardly surprising seeing who some of the editors are. If it was to 'rescue the Cubans from the clutches of Spain' as Henry Cabot Lodge claimed, why did Dewey steam 600 miles to attack the Philippines?--Godwhale (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018

Just a couple minor suggestions:

The USS Maine is described as "armoured", despite the fact that the American convention of omitting the "u" is used in the rest of the article.

The Manila Gazette was almost certainly not talking about an impeding war, but an impending one. Questionableweather (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Linguistical (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Claims of yellow journalism

So this claim is made in the wiki article about "yellow journalism" instigating the war. " There had been war scares before, as in the Virginius Affair in 1873, but in the late 1890s, US public opinion was agitated by anti-Spanish propaganda led by newspaper publishers such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst which used yellow journalism to call for war". One of the citations that is given for this is :https://books.google.co.in/books?id=EfctCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Now it seems that the citation actually disproves this claim rather than supplement it. "This study presents extensive evidence that the yellow press did not foment and could not fomented the Spanish-American war in 1898

Whiny teenager (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to bring attention to this issue as well. The citation actually disproves that claim!

siavashj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.179 (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

One of 5 DoWs of 12 wars needs to be removed

1. The statement is not supported by the citation. 2. War, in the framework of international relations, is a legal concept. If neither the US or the sovereign state involved in the conflict have issued a declaration of war, then the conflict is not a war. This distinction has lost most of its meaning post WW2, but it certainly existed prior to the 20th Century. Jjjanoska (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Support removal. The statement, as currently worded, says: "It was one of only five out of twelve U.S. wars (against a total of eleven sovereign states) to have been formally declared by the U.S. Congress." IMO, that is is worded confusingly wanders off topic. I don't think that statement falls within the WP:LEAD definition saying: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Also, that statement seems to me to implicitly push a negative WP:POV there about the U.S. (and other State actors, but nevermind them) engaging militarily in conflicts other than this one without a formal declaration of war. Perhaps that could be explored elsewhere, with contrasting POVs and supporting cites, but I don't think it has due topical weight here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Support removal. I certainly agree with Jjjanoska "1. The statement is not supported by the citation" and, upon examination, it is not even clear precisely what the statement means. To elucidate: The citation lists the following 11 formal declarations of war by the US Senate:
Declaration of War with Great Britain, 1812,
Declaration of War with Mexico, 1846,
Declaration of War with Spain, 1898,
Declaration of War with Germany, 1917,
Declaration of War with Austria-Hungary, 1917,
Declaration of War with Japan, 1941,
Declaration of War with Germany, 1941,
Declaration of War with Italy, 1941,
Declaration of War with Bulgaria, 1942,
Declaration of War with Hungary, 1942,
Declaration of War with Rumania, 1942
The contentious sentence begins, "It was one of only five out of twelve U.S. wars . . ." The use of the past tense implies that it is intended to mean at the time of the Spanish-American War, "it was one of only five out of twelve U.S. wars to have been formally declared by the U.S. Congress." However,
1. according to the citation, by the time of the Spanish-American War, it was only the third formal declaration of war by the US Senate, not the fifth;
2. if, OTOH, the intention of the sentence is to span the whole history of USA military conflicts to date, and not to refer only to the period until the subject war, then there have now been eleven, not five formally declared wars - either way, the statement is in conflict with its own citation;
3. there is no citation supporting or enumerating the allegation that until that time (or until today) the USA had (or has) been involved in twelve "wars" and it is not clear to which twelve military conflicts this statement refers - I would suggest the the correct number (to date) is far greater than twelve, certainly if you include each of the cited formal declarations as a separate conflict!
And I agree with Jjjanoska point 2. If the statement were to make any sense, it ought to use a term like "military conflict" or "use of military force" in contrast with "war", but since the statement is wrong anyway, and there is no obvious trusted published source from which to correct it, on balance it ought to be removed.
I also agree with all three points made by Wtmitchell.
I am by no means an expert in war, international relations, history or the USA and I am (personal declaration) profoundly opposed to the use of military force in all but situations where a state is under active military attack (or declared intention to use military force against it) by another state - just as I believe that extant international law dictates, however, since this sentence is inaccurate, ambiguous, unsuitable for a Wikipedia lead section, apparently contains an unbalanced negative POV and is unsupported by (and in conflict with it's own) citation, it is unsuitable for such an encyclopedia article and especially unsuitable in this location in this encyclopedia, I, therefore, have no hesitation in removing it. Anyone disagree? Hedles (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done Hedles (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Breckenridge memorandum

I can find no records that there was such a person as J C Breckenridge. There was a J C Breckinridge, a Vice President and Confederate General, but he died in 1875. Additionally, I do not believe that there was such a position as "Under-Secretary of War" at the time, this being created in the 1940s. The Assistant Secretary of War at the time was George de Rue Meiklejohn. There may have been other Assistant Secretaries, and perhaps one of them was named J C Breckenridge, or perhaps there was a J C Breckenridge who served some other role in the government, and wrote this letter. Overall, I'm very suspicious that this is an oft-repeated hoax. Hopefully some better sources will shed light on the issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I did find a source that directly addresses the veracity of this document [19]. In 1934 it was already recognized as a hoax. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, if this does refer to a real person, it's probably Joseph Cabell Breckinridge Sr. However, the previous source states that when the memorandum first appeared, it was authored by a made-up person, and this name was attached later on. The other source used in the section I removed was Guantánamo: An American History by Jonathan M. Hansen. Jonathan Hansen is an academic, and this book was well-reviewed. However, he spells Breckinridge's name incorrectly and claims that he was undersecretary of war, a position that did not exist. This indicates he was somewhat sloppy with his research, and is likely just unknowingly perpetrating this hoax. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit removing the relevant content caught my eye. A bit of googling turned up Simons, Geoff (1996). Cuba: From Conquistador to Castro. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 185. ISBN 978-1-349-24417-1. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A bit more googling turned up another source with more info about Breckenridge, though I don't see a quote from the memo in there: Hansen, Jonathan M. (2011). Guantánamo: An American History. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-0-8090-4897-7. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC) (oops. I see that this source is mentioned and critiqued above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC))
Sorry to be a pest, but I've stumbled across another source: Alfred de Zayas. "2003-04 Douglas McK. brown lecture – vancouver, 19 November 2003 : THE STATUS OF GUANTÁNAMO BAY AND THE STATUS OF THE DETAINEES". U.B.C. LAW REVIEW. 37 (2): 37. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've already addressed the Hansen book above, and the other two you link to contain the same errors, errors they could not possibly have made if they had access to an authentic original document. Breckinridge is misspelled the same way in all of them, his position is incorrect and is called by the name of a position that did not exist at the time, and Nelson Miles is referred to as Lieutenant General rather than Major General, which was his rank at the time this document was supposedly published. If any of those authors actually did their own research, they would have uncovered such errors immediately. Look at [20] and [21]. I do not own the books you've linked to, so I cannot see what their bibliographies are like. For the Hansen book, the note should be on page 372 or 373, which I cannot see on the google books preview, and from the preview I cannot tell if the Simons book has any kind of citations at all. The Zayas lecture cites Liberty: the Story of Cuba by Horatio S. Rubens, which is the source discussed in the article I linked above [22]. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
OK. This just happened to catch my eye in passing because I'm interested in other aspects of the topic and, after some googling, I had some misgivings WP:DUE-wise. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversion 2019-09-26, unsupported & POV

I have reverted this anonymous edit. The edit made several changes, with which I take issue as follows:

  • The change of "American forces" to "American with Filipino forces" capturing Manila is an oversimplification discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this and other articles. The exclusion of Filipino forces from the capture of Manila is said elsewhere to have been a contributing factor leading to the Philippine-American War.
  • The change of "entering the captured city" to "entering the center of the captured city", probably exaggerates the extent of the city of Manila in 1898. I don't have detail about that, but I think this generally supports that.
  • The addition of "The Americans later attacked their Filipino allies" is a POV version of that. That also is discussed in greater detail elsewhere (e.g., Battle of Manila (1899)), and not all POVs agree on who attacked whom.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

consider adding this as an in-line reference

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/55th-congress/session-2/c55s2ch189.pdf 98.243.51.84 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Cámara's squadron

Plans for Rear Admiral Manuel de la Cámara's squadron and its voyage actually were a fairly important strategic and naval aspect of the Spanish-American War, even though the squadron never combat. I have added a brief section on the squadron. Mdnavman (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)mdnavman

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

Lt. William Warren Kimball, Staff Intelligence Officer with the Naval War College[79] prepared a plan with war with Spain including the Philippines on June 1, 1986[80] known as "the Kimball Plan".

1986 is clearly a typo, should be 1896, yes? RockportMan (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching this. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

"old" Catalan?

The political cartoon under section 2.2 Spanish attitude is described as "old Catalan". Looks like regular (modern) Catalan to me? Old Catalan would be from like the 1500s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.221.219.80 (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

Add link to Yellow journalism where it is referenced in last line of paragraph 2 /wiki/Yellow_journalism Xleggs (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done The term was linked in the third paragraph of the lead already, but it is better to link in the first instance (ie the second paragraph). Have amended the language in the third paragraph so does not appear repetitious. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed Malicious Link from Reference Material

I've removed the following link from the Reference Material:

http://forum.stirpes.net/modern-contemporary-history/2576-memoriam-heroes-cuba-phillipines.html

Styled like this:

It goes directly to a scam website. I'm not sure if there's a suitable replacement for it out there, I just wanted to get it down before it causes any harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micpap25 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I love you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.244.164 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Subsections for "Aftermath" section

I added some subsections to the "Aftermath" section for better organization. It could use some improvement, but I believe it to be a good start. If you have any ideas on how to improve the formatting further, please—by all means—don't hesitate to modify it. Tyrone Madera (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Period of the Guantanamo lease

This edit asserting that the period of the Guantanamo lease is 99 years caught my eye. The edit added a supporting cite, but I am unable to acce3ss the cited source. I note that the article section at Cuban–American Treaty of Relations (1903)#The 1903 lease treaties asserts, "The lease stipulates that the United States 'shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control', while recognizing 'the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba'", and that unquantified lease period is substantiated here. Perhaps this edit to the article should have another look. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, Yes, I was hesitant to change it, but the source had a lease period of 99 years and the other, indefinite lease period, was unsourced and uncited. For finding texts, I would recommend trying out the Wikipedia library (if that hasn't been tried already). Here is a quotation of the original text by Roark et al from locations 15385-15386: "For good measure, the United States gave itself a ninety-nine-year lease on a naval base at Guantánamo." What do you propose? Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I cited the lease itself (a primary source, but needing no interpretation on this point). Also see this, this, this, and many other sources. I think that your source saying 99 years is an outlier. Please see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, yes, I'm just trying to get my bearings straight because I haven't experienced a source conflict between RS's before :). So, should we delete the old lease period and add back in the new one? Also, maybe they're both right and it's different naval bases in Guantánamo? Thanks for the sources, I only wish they were used earlier. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, Also, do you still need a copy of the text or do you feel like what I provided in terms of quotations was good? When you said "Perhaps this edit to the article should have another look" was that code for switching out sources? (Please bear with me if I'm a bit slow here, it just felt vague to where I didn't quite understand what you were proposing specifically.) Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't writing in code. I was trying to indicate that I thought the edit had problems and suggesting that it be rethought, perhaps with alternative sourcing. WP:DUE is pretty clear about handling conflicting sources, but it speaks specifically of sources with altrnative viewpoints, not sources which differ about what they assert to be facts. Unless there is something here which I am missing, it looks to me as if the source you cite is just plain wrong on this point (even though I have not been able to look at what that source says for myself). I have not been able to find another source confirming that 99 year lease period, but I find plenty of sources saying that the lease is a perpetual lease (some detailing what the lease itself says -- that the lease is "for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations"). I'm not going to revert your edit, but if it were my edit I would redo the article assertion about the lease period, eliminate the cite you used, and cite other sources -- explaining that on the article talk page (refer to this exchange there if you want); if some other editor objects or comes up with other sources supporting the 99 year period, the article could explain that sources differ about that and cite some examples. -- Digging around a bit more, I see that the Havana Times said here in 2015: "Although it was repealed in 1934, the amendment was replaced with a new treaty that allowed the naval base to be kept indefinitely." in a new lease dated in 1934 (I see that the copy of the lease I looked at earlier was the original 1903 lease). That source appears to be a tertiary source not meeting WP's reliability critia, though, and I have not tried to research that further at all. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
(added) Oops. I somehow thought above that this exchange was happening on my talk page -- my mistake. I did do a little more googling, and found this. The content on pages 3-4 there are relevant here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, I've taken the liberty to revise the lease period back to perpetual.
Although I read WP:DUE I wanted reassurance because you've edited Wikipedia a lot more than I have, and I wanted to build clear and sound connections between reasoning and action incase other editors were to read this exchange later. When I said "code" I meant what you were implying, not that you were actually speaking in code. Sorry about that confusion. But you've pretty much explained what you meant to me now anyways so it's all good.
It does look like the sources against include the source itself, so I think the part about the 99 year lease was a simple mistake (my guess is that the writers had written about something like Hong Kong recently and had a brain fart). Thanks for doing all of that research, even on the aff side.
Also, I don't think I understand what the mistake was with your last edit. Do you normally speak differently about articles on your talk page than on article talk page? Would you have used a different tone or something?
Could you strikethrough everything that you didn't mean to write so as to clarify?
I hope that I haven't been too frustrating. Thanks for your input! Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything I said above that I did not mean to say. I don't have firm rules, but I generally write more directly about the topic on article talk pages and more directly about edits when an editor opens a discussion on my user talk page. I got into this discussion because I saw your edit in passing, not expecting many exchanges, and I was more offhand here than I usually am on an article talk page. In closing, I'll mention something we both ought to have thought to check early on but did not: Guantanamo Bay Naval Base#Lease. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, Thanks :)
What was in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base#Lease that we both missed? Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't look at it until late in our exchanges above; instead, I went straight to the internet to search for info and sources. I could have saved effort by looking there first. It says there: "The 1903 Lease for Guantanamo has no fixed expiration date.", and cites a web-viewable supporting source. That report I mentioned earlier is also referenced there. I don't think it is useful to clutter this article talk page with more on this -- if you have anything further, let's take it to my talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish–American_War/Archive_2&oldid=1175130984"