Talk:Emilio Aguinaldo

The article says that he studied in Manila, and then "... Aguinaldo returned to his native Luzon and helped lead an uprising that for a while drove the Spanish from the region." Well, Manila is also part of Luzon, so to where did Aguinaldo return? Maybe to Cavite? Those who know, please correct the text as it does not make geographical sense now. Ctande 21:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Whatever problem there was before, it seems to be fixed now. TheCoffee 07:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fascist?
Though he collaborated with the Japanese (under duress), was Aguinaldo a fascist? He is currently on the list of fascists. Ready over his biography the only fascist tendency I see was his dedication the the national flag. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 18:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * He lost in the election for President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935. He ran under the banner of the National Socialist Party. --Noypi380 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The National Socialist Party that existed in the Philippines at that time wasn't a Nazi party. While the term "national socialist" is usually seen as a synonym for "Nazi" today, there have been several political parties which have used that name in the past to simply signify that they are a nationalist party (and Aguinaldo was definitely a nationalist) advocating a Socialist system of government. Jsc1973 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What the...
This should be in the Featured Articles Request. The Norse version of this is much much better than this. Let us do it. Kabitenyo din po kasi ako. Justox dizaola 11:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Other details
Should he not have a successor? The Republic fell, though individual general contiued the fight. the position had been abolished so he woul not ha a successor in his constitutional line. 135 would mark another line. also, noriel is here as vice president?Gareon 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Why did the other countrys didn't want to know about him? 'bakit hindi kinilala si emilio aguinaldo?'TriYa 20:53, 6 November 2006


 * Dahil, the Philippine independence was not recognized. While revolutionaries were fighting for independence, the United States was negotiating to buy the Philippines from Spain. When Spain lost to the US, they completed the sale of the Philippines. --Jondel 05:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Aguinaldo signature
http://www.filipiniana.net:8080/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_F000000000932.JPG --143.166.226.43 05:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Aguinaldo images
I have seen this site with an image of Aguinaldo and the other one which could be useful to the article: http://filamgop.org/_wsn/page2.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritandBeyonce (talk • contribs) 09:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I question some of the entries in the current infobox, shown at the right. I hope to avoid having this discussion degenerate along nationalistic POV lines, and ask that other discussion participants also try to avoid that. Having said that, I'll state the problems I perceive, the reasons I think that these are problems, and my suggested solutions:


 * " order = 1st President of the Philippines Dictator of the Dictatorial Government President of the Revolutionary Government President of the 1st Philippine Republic " &mdash; My understanding of the History of the Philippines (1898-1946) (much of which I supplied, so I'm open to discussion about POV concerns &mdash; but such discussions are probably best held on that article's talk page rather than here), the sovereignty of the Philippines, as recognized by the family of sovereign nations at the time, passed from Spain to the U.S. with the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris (1898). My understanding is that the revolutionary group styling themselves as the government of the 1st Philippine Republic never achieved international recognition and never actually governed the country.  I suggest adding a qualifying adjective, e.g. nascent.


 * " predecessor = Newly Established " &mdash; Surely it was preceeded by something. I suggest something like "Spanish rule" or "Spanish soverieignty".


 * " successor = Manuel L. Quezon (position abolished 1901-1935) " &mdash; As my understanding is that the nascent revolutionary government never achieved sovereignty, I believe that there was no successor.  Perhaps something like "superseded by territorial status under United States sovereignty." might work.

As it stands, IMHO, the article expresses a POV position that the First Philippine Republic government was a legitimate government of the country. This might be encyclopedic in an article something like Political history of the Philippines (I am surprised to find that a stub article with this name already exists) as a description of one POV held outside of IN, supported by cited supporting sources and contrasted against an alternatively held POV (as also cite-supported) that this was a nascent revolutionary movement which never achieved sovereignty, but I don't think this belongs here.

Comment? Objections to my making changes as outlined above? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I recognize a misapprehension on my part above. I was mistakenly taking Predecessor, etc. as referring to the government which Aguinaldo headed instead of as referring to Aguinaldo himslef. Looking at this as referring to Aguinaldo himself, I think that only one clarifying change needs to be made. I've added nascent as a qualifying term for First Philippine Republic. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit in Philippine-American war section
I've shortened the sentence which read
 * "On the night of February 4, 1899, a Filipino was shot by an American sentry as ,he thought, he crossed the Silencio Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila."

to read
 * "On the night of February 4, 1899, a Filipino was shot by an American sentry."

The article was recently edited to add the ",he thought," bit, which I do not understand and have removed. I've also removed the bit about Silencio Street because there are contradictory accounts regarding the precise location. Battle of Manila (1899) quotes an eyewitness account of the incident which places the location on the San Juan del Monte bridge, and cites a source for the quote. However, in Manila, the National Historical Institute (NHI) has ordered the transfer of the commemorative marker from the San Juan Bridge to Sta. Mesa, saying that studies by Dr. Benito Legarda, former NHI chair, showed that the shot was fired somewhere between Blockhouse 7 (within Manila’s boundary) and Barrio Santol (Sampaloc District) on the connecting road that is now Sosiego (see ). Since the info about the precise location of the incident is not important to this article, I thought it best to avoid the conflict here over that point by not mentioning the information. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Php bill 5 front.jpg
The image Image:Php bill 5 front.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Ingenpedia:Media copyright questions. --08:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what I read, this guy might have been an opportunistic thug.
I'm curious about who this guy was.

Was the ballot stuffed against Bonifacio or not?

Did he take money from the Spanish to retire to Hong Kong?

Facts! Does anyone have the facts???

203.87.178.21 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This an old issue... even debate till now Aguinaldo is one of the most controvertial famous personel in the philippine history. Because there are many source but yet doesn't match to it story...the issue against bonifacio is still to be debate until today about the exrcution...on the money well you should find the page (Pact of Biak-na-Bato). FilBox101 (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Presidential term dates, etc.
The Presidency section gives, and says, "The insurgent First Philippine Republic was formally established with the proclamation of the Malolos Constitution on January 21, 1899", yet it lists dates prior to 1899 as Presidential and Vice-Presidential term dates (e.g., "1897–1901" for President). The section lists Mariano Trias as Vice President, though the First Philippine Republic had no such office.

this edit changed the presidential start date from January 23, 1899 to March 22, 1897 and inserted " (1897) " for the Vice President.


 * On March 22, 1897, Katipunan members met at the Tejeros Convention. Aguinaldo was elected President. Before he assumed office Andres Bonifacio (then President) annulled the convention proceedings. Aguinaldo, though, did assume the office.
 * On December 14, 1897, the Pact of Biak-na-Bato effectively dissolved the Katipunan. Aguinaldo and others went into exile abroad.
 * On 19 May, 1898, Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines. On May 24, he assumed command of revolutionary forces.
 * On 18 June, Aguinaldo issued a decree proclaiming a Dictatorial Government headed by himself.
 * On June 23, 1898, Aguinaldo issued a decree replacing the dictatorial government with a revolutionary government and changing his title from Dictator to President.
 * Elections were held by the Revolutionary Government between June and September 10, 1898, resulting in Aguinaldo being seated as President in the seating of a legislature known as the Malolos Congress. In a session between September 15, 1898 and November 13, 1899, the Malolos Constitution was adopted, creating the First Philippine Republic with Aguinaldo as President.
 * On March 23, 1901, Aguinaldo was captured by U.S. forces.
 * On April 1, 1901, Aguinaldo swore an oath accepting the authority of the United States over the Philippines and pledging his allegiance to the American government.

It appears to me that this article oversimplifies and confuses info re Aguinaldo's presidencies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Was there really an honest election to the Presidency of the Katipunan? I believe this election you're saying was a fabricated election which provides a clear example of what future politics would be in the hands of greedy Filipinos. Overwhelming evidence shows that he was a "self-proclaimed" President. He was more effective as a "negotiator" or a "businessman" rather than a President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalibkib rollie (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nazi?
Is Aguinaldo a member of the Nazi Party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.90.66 (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No...hes a freemasion also a Nationalist FilBox101 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Dates of Aguinaldo's term(s)
A discussion taking place at Talk:President of the Philippines appears to impact this article as well. Some editors of this article may want to comment there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

POV content, unsupported content, editing intentions
This Cluebot reversion, which restored a parenthtical remark apparently expressing unsupported editorial POV "(showing his true colors)", caught my eye. Looking at the section affected, I see that section entirely unreferenced. Searching for the string "true colors", I find another unsupported instance, also apparently editorial POV, located in another completely unreferenced article section. Looking through the article, I see that a number of its sections are completely unreferenced.

As I get time, I plan to read through this article and add references containing page-numbered cites from history books on my bookshelf. As I do that, I plan to edit unsupported article assertions into conformance with info in the supporting sources which I will cite. Two of the books I plan to use are and. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I've done some initial edits here. Some of the changes revised article assertions to conform to info in sources I've cited. I removed a mention of General Luna's death which didn't square with the relative chronology of the deaths Bonifacio and Luna. I've also relocated the Notes section to conform to MOS:APPENDIX. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I've completed a series of edits as described above. I concentrated on unreferenced sections, and didn't look at some parts of the article. I'll probably revisit this article as I see it on my watchlist, but I've done all I intend to do for the moment. The article could probably use more work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Descendants
The list of descendants is getting pretty long, and will grow exponentially as more great-great-... generations come along. I suggest that this article adopt inclusion criteria similar to those used by the List of Filipino-Americans article; i.e., "To be included in this list, the person must have a Ingenpedia article showing they are an Aguinaldo descendant or must have references showing they are an Aguinaldo descendant and are notable." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Independence Proclamation, Dictatorship and Revolutionary Government
I'm virtually certain that the cite-supported material in my rewrite is correct (or at least a better reflection of the material in the cited supporting sources) than the material with which it was replaced, so I'm reverting the IP's last edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, IP 121.54.2.91 added a new section titled "Dictatorship and Revolutionary Government". The added material had a number of apparent problems.
 * Here, I redid the section, retitling it as above (probably not an optimal title), correcting a number of errors, and citing supporting sources.
 * Here, IP 121.54.2.91 essentially reverted my corrections, without comment but citing at least one source in support of a previously unsupported assertion. The assertion was, "from Hong Kong. He establish a Dictatorial Government headed by himself. on May 24, 1898, It is prescribed by Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, his war counsellor. That nullified the orders issued under the authority of the Biak-na-Bato Republic. The cited assertion is this, titled "Decree of June 18, 1898, establishing the Dictatorial Government". Please note the June 18 date, vs. the May 24 date.
 * Also, there are grammatical errors in the version from the IP (e.g., in "He establish a Dictatorial Government ..." above, "establish" should be past tense.

Googling around, I see that there may be some disagreement between sources (or perhaps the disagreement is only apparent disagreement). Aguinaldo apparently said something about a new government in a speech in Cavite on May 24, 1898. I haven't seen the text of the speech, and don't know what he said. A government (an insurgent government, vs. the Spanish government which was in place at that time) was officially established in the "Decree of June 18, 1898, establishing the Dictatorial Government" document mentioned and linked above. This appears, AFAICS, to be the government about which Aguinaldo spoke on May 24. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The History of the Philippines (1898–1946) article says that Aguinaldo gave a speech in May 24 in which he said, "... I return to assume command of all the forces for the attainment of our lofty aspirations, establishing a dictatorial government which will set forth decrees under my sole responsibility, ...", citing a supporting source which is not viewable online and which I have not seen.
 * This source says, "Five days after his arrival, on May 24, Aguinaldo temporarily established a dictatorial government, but plans were afoot to proclaim the independence of the country. A democratic government would then be set up." I've seen that source discussed previously; I'm not sure of its IN:RS status.
 * This source, probably a reliable source, says that on May 24, Aguinaldo proclaimed a new government.

Hmmm.... This This appears to contain a translation of Aguinaldo's May 24th speech. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have following sources to add. according to this link, He established a Dictatorial Government on May 24. June 18 is subsequent reorganization of local governments .The Dictatorial Government last until June 23, where he established a Revolutionary Government. Here are few more links
 * 
 * 
 * Please, consider this following links and statements. - 121.54.2.91 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still on the road and limited to online references but, from a quick look at the sources currently cited in the article and from my recollection of having read other sources, it seems to me that authoritative sources generally agree that the Dictatorial Government was established upon the 18 June 1898 date of issuance of the decree requoted here (Tagalog) and here (English). I have noted that this creates a hiccup in the timeline -- with independence being proclaimed before any governmental structure had been put in place to govern the entity newly-proclaimed as being independent. I am aware that other (revisionist?) sources do assert that the Dictatorial government was established on the May 24 date, about a month prior to the publication of the official proclamation of its establishment.


 * I see above that on 17 April I attempted to provide a link to an English translation of Aguinaldo's May 24 speech and, apparently, I botched the link. I have not been able to re-locate the web page where I saw the purported translation, but I'll continue looking for it.


 * One of the sources you mention above (this one, published by filipino.biz.ph) asserts that Aguinaldo issued a decree formally establishing the Dictatorial Government on May 24, saying, "Later in the day, he issued a decree formally establishing the Dictatorial Government. The decree nullified the orders issued under the authority of the Biyak-na-Bato republic and asserted that the Dictatorial Government was temporary in nature, 'so that, when peace shall have been reestablished and our legitimate aspiration for unrestricted liberty attained, it may be modified by the nation, in which rests the principle of authority.'" Another  mentioned source (this, which appears to be an August 11, 2006 op-ed article in thenewstoday.info of Iloilo City, says, "he established the Dictatorial Government on May 24 that nullified the orders issued under the authority of the Biak-na-Bato." Considering the similarity of wording, one wonders whether the news columnist might have gotten his information from the web page hosted on filipino.biz.ph.


 * Digging around, I found Kalayaan : Bayan ko, Sagot ko, Philippine Information Agency, June 12, 2002, which says on page 28, "On May 24, Aguinaldo issued a decree establishing the dictatorial government." I also see that assertion made elsewhere. Considering IN:DUE perhaps the article should contain the info that some modern sources (clearly cited in support) appear to dispute historical sources in this. Perhaps, even, a source containing a quote or a translation of the decree said to have been issued on May 24 can be found.


 * I will be passing through Manila next Thursday -- I'll try to find the time to browse a favorite bookstore which usually has some good books on Philippine history and to drop by the National historical institute in Rizal Park to ask whether they have anything on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Digging around online, I found what appears to be the quoted or translated text of a proclamation issued in Cavite by Aguinaldo on May 24, 1898: ""Now that the great and powerful North American nation have come to offer disinterested protection for the effort to secure the liberation of the country, I return to assume command of all the forces for the attainment of our lofty aspirations, establishing a dictatorial government which will set forth decrees under my sole responsibility, assisted by the advice of eminent persons, until these islands are completely conquered and able to form a constitutional convention, and to elect a president and a cabinet, in whose favor I will duly resign the athority.""


 * Source: (republished by openlibrary.org).

I have seen this described in various places as "Aguinaldo's assumption of the Dictature", or words to that effect. I think that it is probably fair to describe it in those terms, with appropriate supporting cites and along with the information that Aguinaldo formalized the establishment of the dictatorial government in a decree issued on 18 June (linked in an earlier entry above). As I get time, I'll take a look at relevant IN articles with a view to rewriting the affected portions along these lines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I also search for various sources, I found out that many articles in books and internet sites including some government sites, states that Aguinaldo establish dictatorial government on May 24, i found few source that the dictatorial government was establish on June 18. This is a big problem that whether Aguinaldo establish the dictatorial government on May 24 or June 18, What if we combine this information?, to avoid further discussions, that Aguinaldo establish the dictatorial government on May 24, but formally assume the dictatorship in a decree issued on June 18. please decide if you want. I recommend also the National Historical Institution is the responsible of taking care of this issue, please consult some NHI members or historians to clarify this issue...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it's a matter of what one wishes to accept as the action which "established" Aguinaldo's insurgent dictatorial government. On May 24, 1898, Aguinaldo is said to have issued a "proclamation" &mdash; a formal announcement. I'm not sure whether that proclamation was only issued verbally or was formalized in written form. It is quoted on pages 357-358 here. It said, in part, "I return to assume command of all the forces for the attainment of our lofty aspirations, establishing a dictatorial government which will set forth decrees under my sole responsibility, ...". That can be (and, I think, generally is) taken as the formal establishment of an insurgent dictatorial government as of that May 24 date, with the details to be fleshed out later by decree. On 18 June, Aguinaldo issued a decree which (again?) formally established his dictatorial government. In the decree, he said, "... for this reason, I am compelled to establish a Dictatorial Government [...]. In view of the above, I hereby decree [...]" (see pages 10-12 here). In between these two dates, on 12 June, the independence of the Philippines was proclaimed, The proclamation included "... solemnize this act by the Dictatorial Government of the Philippine islands, ..." (See pages 413-417 here). This is described in the Independence Proclamation, Dictatorship and Revolutionary Government section of the article, and the supporting sources mentioned here are cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article and information is already acceptable and okay to anyone who reads it, But i have few suggestions to make. First, the title must be shorten, Independence Proclamation, Dictatorship and Revolutionary Government is too long. Second, the content must be organize, same info must be grouped into one. And lastly, the content must be lengthen, these information seems to be short. If possible, please grant my request...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Early life section
I noticed that the Early life section contained an intro which did not relate to Aguinaldo's early life and which largely duplicated the content of the article's lead section. I've removed the duplicated material. I've preserved the info from that material about his children by his first wife by relocating it to the Personal life subsection, which discusses hsi two marriages.

As a part of this removal, I've removed the charactization in the removed material of the Philippine Revolution as "victorious". This oversimplification distorts the actual situation, I think. The characterization is supported by a source citation and an editorial analysis. I looked at the the supporting source cited and did not find support for the content of the now-removed footnoted editorial analysis. Also, the characterization of the result of the Philippine Revolution as a victory by the revolutionaries seems to be a bit IN:peacockish, particularly in the absence of a characterization of the result of the Philippine-American War in the following sentence of the material removed as a failure for the revolutionaries. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Traitor
They should put the "Traitor" on Emilio Biography somewhere, he is what he is a Traitor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.101.206 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Donit be bias...he may order the deaths of Bonifacio but never had been a traitor to the country. FilBox101 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Aguinaldo's control of the country - dates and degree
This is a IN:BRD discussion re the final part the caption of the File:Uncle Sam & Emilio Aguinaldo.jpg image in the article. As inserted here by Alicekim53, it read "... at the end of the Philippine-American War, Aguinaldo would surrender control of the Philippines to the United States, which then annexed the country."

I boldly changed this here to read ""... at the end of the Philippine-American War, Aguinaldo would be captured by U.S. forces."

with an edit summary saying, "(1) Aguinaldo didn't have control of the country; he headed an insurgent revolutionary movement. (2) The country had been ceded by Spain to the U.S. in 1898."

That was reverted here by Arius1998, with an edit summary saying, "The Republic do exercise control on the majority if not the whole country. The Americans had only controlled Manila and Cavite to start with."

The article is speaking of the situation in 1901/1902 here, not 1898/1899. It would be fair to say that physical control of the country rested with Aguinaldo as of the February 4, 1899 outbreak of hostilities between the US and Aguinaldo's insurgent Philippine Republic government. From that point on, the US established wider and wider physical control. By late 1899, Aguinaldo was shifting his capital from place to place and being pursued by US forces. On 13 November 1899, at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, he decided to disperse his army, decentralize command, and shift to guerilla war. Sometime in November, Aguinaldo would have passed through Tirad Pass on his way to Palanan, Isabela, where he was captured by US forces on March 23, 1901. On April 1, 1901, Aguinaldo swore an oath accepting the authority of the United States over the Philippines and pledging his allegiance to the American government. On April 19, he issued a Proclamation of Formal Surrender to the United States, telling his followers to lay down their weapons and give up the fight. There was no annexation of the Philippines by the US sometime after Aguinaldo's capture. (more detail in the articles on History of the Philippines (1898–1946), Philippine–American War, Campaigns of the Philippine Insurrection, and sources cited there)

As far as de-jure control goes, the situation as I understand it is
 * The US established a military government on the Philippines on March 14, 1898, soon after the Battle of Manila (1898). At that time, Spain still held sovereignty over the Philippines.
 * Aguinaldo's Philippine Republic proclaimed independence from Spain on June 12, 1898. That proclamation, however, did not supersede Spainish sovereignty.
 * Correction: Independence was proclaimed on behalf of the Filipino People by a dictatorial government headed by Aguinaldo at that time. The Philippine Republic came later. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Spain ceded the Philippines to the US on December 10, 1898.

More detail on that in the Timeline of Philippine sovereignty article and sources cited there.

The caption as it currently reads is simply inaccurate. That needs to be remedied. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed my earlier motion and I saw my great mistake. First of all, the Malolos Constitution had not mentioned specifically what the Republic encompassed as her territory in the Philippine Archipelago. Next, though Aguinaldo had only withdrew to Tarlac by September of 1899 thus still giving Aguinaldo more than half of Luzon under his control; by the official end of the Philippine–American War on July 4, 1902, Aguinaldo had no official and effective command of any Philippine territory for he had surrendered the Republic already by April 19, 1901. Except the existence of the Moro Rebellion and Sakay's Tagalog Republic, the whole archipelago had already fell to American hands. Arius1998 (talk)  09:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rethink. Miguel Malvar, Vincente Lukban, and probably some others continued the fight for a while after Aguinaldo's proclamation of surrender on On April 19, 1901. Lukban was captured on November 17, 1901; Malvar surrendered on April 16, 1902. My understanding is that Sakay was jailed for seditious activities early in the war and released as a part an amnesty (I'm not clear on the release date and circumstances). He proclaimed his "Republika ng Katagalugan" on May 6, 1902.


 * Based on the above, I'm going to undo your revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

uncited "fact" = assertion ≠ NPOV
From some of the comments above it is clear that Aguinaldo doesn't enjoy universal acclaim, or anything approaching it. The 1935 election results for instance show him gaining only one in seven of the popular vote, a distant second to Quezon.

For this reason I find some of the adulatory content of this article not representative of a neutral point of view. I think it unbalanced, and the voice of opprobrium should be included: it is not satisfactory to delete all dissent because uncited, no more than a lot of the current material is uncited too but remains. Better to incorporate it (although perhaps not in such baldly inflammatory words), noting that differences of opinion exist.

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Thu 09:52, wikitime= 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the above, but note IN:BURDEN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that it is okay to balance the article. I myself know that Aguinaldo did not really enjoy national popularity as cited in an American article published in Hong Kong in June 1898. I don't know though where newspaper was it part of since it was just a cut out that I used to have. Quezon, I believe, was part of Aguinaldo's presidential guard during the Philippine-American War, and I think why Quezon won was because he is more active in politics than Aguinaldo was prior to 1935. Arius1998 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1898? You sure? Seems a bit early.


 * Quezon and Aguinaldo represented different parties, but even so, I think Aguinaldo's loss was a reflection of popular opinion.


 * John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Fri 16:16, wikitime= 08:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I think why Quezon won is because of Osmena being his running mate. It fused in two personalities who had been racing to Washington, D.C. from 1919 to know whose independence mission would prevail in U.S. Congress. Quezon is the viable presidentiable mainly because his mission triumphed over the Osmena-Roxas mission. When the two combined forces, the tandem won by a landslide. It could have been a close fight if Aguinaldo accepted Gregorio Aglipay as his running mate, in which he did not, as portrayed in some editorials at the time. The two revolutionary icons ran on separate parties instead. Arius1998 (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Aguinaldo's leadership terms in various insurgecies
Going by the dates mentioned therein, the section presently headed Presidency appears to contain a mishmash of information from several insurgent movements headed by Aguinaldo. Note a in the Notes section of the article, which concerns itself with the beginning date of Aguinaldo's term as president of the First Philippine Republic, capsulizes some details regarding this mishmash. That note presently and reads as follows:

The Presidency section has a summary style link to the First Philippine Republic article, but that article only relates to one of Aguinaldo's administrative terms in several insurgencies, and some of the info in the Presidency section and its Administration and cabinet subsection relates to his administrations in insurgencies predating the First Philippine Republic. The Presidency section and its Administration and cabinet subsection need to be reorganized and/or rewritten.

I'll make a first-cut suggestion: perhaps the section presently headed Presidency could be re-titled as Revolutionary and political career or some such, with information about Aguinaldo's career prior to the First Philippine Republic added in new chronologically-arranged subsections and information presently in the Presidency section relocated to appropriate subsections.

Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the Presidency section could start with Aguinaldo's dictatorship, mainly because in quick succession of the revolutionary government, it led to the creation of the First Philippine Republic. The others may be under what you call Revolutionary Career. Arius1998 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think 'insurgency' is the right word, as that connotes some sort of invasion from outside the country. I think 'insurrection' would be better - a kind of mutiny. John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 15:02, wikitime= 07:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

January 2013 rewrite
I've boldly just completed a rewrite of the central part of this article. I've tried to cast the article more as a summary style article about Emilio Aguinaldo, and less as a collection of observations about Philippine historical tidbits in which Aguinaldo was a player which are better covered in detail in other articles. I've removed quite a bit of material which didn't directly relate to Aguinaldo. More work needs to be done, particularly with regard to regularizing the hodgepodge of Ref and Cte styles, and I'll probably do some work on that later. Meantime, I'll pause and invite discussion here. Re the suggestion by Arius1998 in the preceding section, I've eliminated the Presidency section, as Aguinaldo held positions titled "President" in several insurgencies. I've tried to describe his leadership position in those insurgencies in seperate sections ordered chronologically. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't care at all for the word 'player' as this implies it's all a game. Participant would be better.

Basically footnotes should expand on text, whereas references should only be citations to other work. I did a lot of amendment not long ago. I hate the Harvard reference style, because it bloats the reference list by repeating an element each time it's used. Better to use the full citation, such as I do, and rp where necessary.

Your spelling's a bit iffy.

John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Mon 17:54, wikitime= 09:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You might care to ponder the box at the bottom, which tells us Preceded by Andrés Bonifacio as president of the Unofficial Presidents of the Philippines

BTW, someone kindly deleted a redirect page (after someone else kindly moved the page), so I have had to put some of the citations right.

John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Tue 20:34, wikitime= 12:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right about player. Aguinaldo was a leading participant.
 * You're right that my spelling is sometimes iffy. My tangle-fingered typing is often bad too, and my proofreading is even worse.
 * I've changed "as president of" to "as one of", which seems better.
 * Thanks for the repair work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I said earlier that I would probably come back to do some work on regularizing Ref and Cite styles in this article. I've now done that. There were only three Refs which used Harvard referencing, all citing the same source. I've converted those to use rp instead, though I don't really like that style. In the process, I found that the Refs which use transclusion seem to be incompatible with list-defined references. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My hour is up at the internet cafe. I'll write tomorrow John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Wed 20:46, wikitime= 12:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Besides correcting a few typos and formatting errors, I changed to dates to date - my understanding is that this display the date according to user's local preferences.

The full citations that you changed don't display very sensibly. I think it would be better just to quote an actual page number, and leave it to the reader to do some research - no need to wipe their noses for them.

I'm not a great fan of list-defined references but I can't see how transclusion could affect it. What did throw things awry was that someone deleted the redirect page (necessary because someone else moved the page). I don't know why the deletion, it doesn't make sense to me, as it must be trivially small. John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Thu 20:05, wikitime= 12:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Couple more harvards you missed. John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Sat 20:34, wikitime= 12:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried list-defined references in my sandbox and it worked fine with transclusions. It must have been that deleted redirect page which put the kibosh on it earlier.

I've added a heap more works to the transclusion citations page Ingenpedia:Tambayan Philippines/History of the Philippines (citations). Most of them quite old, because I used the bibliography from a 1970 version of something by Zaide. He wrote plenty, eh? Not sure I really like his not unbiased style. John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Sun 13:58, wikitime= 05:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I just realised that you hacked out the section on education. I think some of it was worth keeping. John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Sat 18:08, wikitime=  10:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use editing or man-on-a-mission?
What do you think of the guy who in the last few days has gone through removing freemasonry tags from about 200 people, including this one? Personally I think it is a defining characteristic, and it enables otherwise hidden threads to be seen John of Cromer in China Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 16:20, wikitime= 08:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Involvement In the Spanish-American War
This article needs more info about the Spanish-American War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.51.46 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that started when the 1st Philippine Republic...had an unofficial allied it self to the U.S. FilBox101 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2015
Please I would like to set a semi-protected article about Emilio Aguinaldo, many such un-registered editors were able to make such abusive and violation on this page.


 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Ingenpedia:Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Emilio Aguinaldo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723021900/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/1/6/00000254.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/1/6/00000254.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050125181857/http://pangulo.ph:80/ to http://www.pangulo.ph

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Emilio Aguinaldo
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. ~ Manila's  Poging Juan  21:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Emilio Aguinaldo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/302726/first-philippine-president-emilio-f-aguinaldo-47th-death-anniversary#.UP_pMx03uVI
 * Added tag to http://aboutph.com/2010/05/gen-emilio-aguinaldo-1869-1964/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103221027/http://www.grandlodgephils.org.ph/2012/?page_id=328 to http://www.grandlodgephils.org.ph/2012/?page_id=328
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090512212522/http://www.bibingka.com:80/phg/documents/jun12.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/phg/documents/jun12.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104012401/http://www.nhi.gov.ph/downloads/fihgov0008.pdf to http://www.nhi.gov.ph/downloads/fihgov0008.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Aguinaldo exonoration claim
I've reverted this edit, which had added an unsourced assertion. I had gone looking for a supporting source, but came up with this which, at the top of page 186, seems to say that Aguinaldo was never formally exonorated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Emilio Aguinaldo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104144908/http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/first-republic/emilio-aguinaldo/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/first-republic/emilio-aguinaldo/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://aboutph.com/2010/05/gen-emilio-aguinaldo-1869-1964/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104144908/http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/first-republic/emilio-aguinaldo/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/first-republic/emilio-aguinaldo/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bibingka.com/phg/documents/jun12.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611211251/http://timawa.net/pn.htm to http://www.timawa.net/pn.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pangulo.ph/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emilio Aguinaldo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205225309/http://www.fotw.net/flags/ph-hist.html to http://www.fotw.net/flags/ph-hist.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Prime Minister discussion
Please see the discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of the Philippines and comment there as appropriate. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Assassination of Luna" Who?
Who is "Luna"? There are no wiki-links nor even a full name in the above section. 155.4.96.9 (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Luna was Antonio Luna, of course; more details are in that article. I was surprised not to find content there describing development of a split between Aguinaldo and Luna prior to Luna's assassination; following on your having raised this here I had hoped to import some of such content into this article from that one to predicate this section. I think that both articles ought to include such content, with more detail in that one, but I don't have sources handy where I might find it. If I get time, I'll see what I can discover on the web along this line, and I'll hope that another interested editor beats me to that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Ingendata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Ingendata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Emilio Aguinaldo Speech in Spanish (1929).webm

A Commons file used on this page or its Ingendata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Ingendata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Emilio Aguinaldo monument at Barasoain Church grounds - Malolos - Bulacan.jpg