Talk:Spanish–American War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removed assertion that the U.S. "backed" the Philippine Revolution.[edit]

Here, I've removed ", which the U.S. later backed upon entering the Spanish-American War", re the Philippine Revolution, and have rearranged the text a bit. This has been in the article for a long time ([1]). Commodore Dewey certainly facilitated the resumption of the revolution (which had been suspended in 1897 by the Pact of Biak-na-Bato) by returning Emil Aguinaldo to Manila from exile in Hong Kong, and this is explained a bit further down in this same section of the article. Asserting that the U.S. "backed" the revolution, though, overstates the extent and the depth of U.S. commitment in that regard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Removed Malicious Link from Reference Material[edit]

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

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 (talkcontribs) 03:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Subsections for "Aftermath" section[edit]

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[edit]

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 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)