Talk:Emilio Aguinaldo

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)

That is true, however this group was influenced by events in Europe (to say no more than that). The article mentions Aguinaldo’s opposition to settling Jews in the Philippines, but does not go in to detail. A short summary of his reasoning on this issue, and of the beliefs and doctrine of the Phillipine National Socialist Party would improve the article. Remember, all statements must be properly sourced. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:AC97:748B:F4A8:7190 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of section: Retreat to Montalban

Here, I've WP:BOLDly removed this section, which was added in this 2016 edit. As I understand the sequence of eventsfrom Tejeros_Convention#Aguinaldo, Aguinaldo traveled from Imus to Tejeros after being notified of his election as president, leaving his brother in command in the field. This section, then, contans material not directly relevant to the topic of this article. Also, this section separates two sections which are directly relevant to this topic. Ths simple removal of this section could probably be improved by some editing in one or both of those sections that it previously separated. Please improve as needed and/or discuss below. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Emilio Aguinaldo Speech in Spanish (1929).webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Designer of the Philippine National Flag

I have read many sources(like memoirs of Marcela Agoncillo, who sewn the flag with the help of her daughter and niece of rizal) that proves Aguinaldo designed the Philippine National Flag, i've asked my history profs, my history-buff friends and associates, and they all answered me that Emilio Aguinaldo did designed the Flag, but in a another wikipeda page "Flag of the Philippines" it shows that "Feliciano Jocson" designed it who i didn't even know until now, and read that they changed it from Emilio Aguinaldo to Feliciano Jocson, their source from Artemio Ricarte and Julio Nakpil who are both known to be critics of Aguinaldo and im sure they will discredit Aguinaldo in everyway they can, so what should i believe?, And who is the real designer of our Flag? RA9Markus (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Here, I've added tags regarding this to the Flag of the Philippines article. Attention is needed there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(added) See also this PDI article, but that is identified as an opinion piece. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

during the Filipinization of the islands in 1920s-1930s, the feature of the flag that denotes a state of war (red field on top) was mentioned in a letter from Aguinaldo to Captain Emmanuel A. Baja in June 11,1925. that evidence is enough making Aguinaldo the true designer of the flag but wait, there is more.

even before the revolution of 1896 started, Aguinaldo's katipunan faction "Magdalo" in 1895 had a flag using a sun with eight rays with the baybayin "Ka" in the middle with the background being color red, and after becoming elected president in 1897, he designed a new flag that became the first official flag of the philippines, the "Flag of the Tagalog People" this flag was used during the Republic of Biak na Bato, it features the modern-day philippine sun with 8 rays and a face in the middle but with white color for the sun and red background, and when Aguinaldo was exiled to Hong Kong, He requested Marcela Agoncillo to sew what is now know today the National Flag, this is based on Aguinaldo's drawing given to Marcela, in conclusion Aguinaldo did designed the National Flag of the Philippines, I hope this answers your question. MaharlikanBoi (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It in not Wikipedia's task to take a position re what is and is not true. Per WP:DUE, it is Wikipedia's task to present viewpoints of cited reliable sources regarding the topic of WP articles, including differing viewpoints, in a neutral manner. I haven't seen what I would call a reliable source re design of the flag by Jocson or even re his conceptualization of the design but I suspect, from what I have seen, that such sources may exist. WP should probably not mention this (except, possibly, mentioning that PDI opinion piece) without citing an RS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Miguel Malvar

This edit by @Hariboneagle927 caught my eye. It adds a note asserting that Malvar is "Unrecognized by the contemporary Philippine government; as president of the First Philippine Republic" This conflicts with part of this note which I recently added to the First Philippine Republic article. Both involve the question of whether or not Malvar succeeded Aguinaldo as president, officially or unofficially, Other WP articles also touch on this question. The subject edit here is unsupported, but it is a negative assertion. My edit in that other article contains this commented citation that asserts support by this source. The asserted support is not explicit re the point there (I think that the implication is clear there; others might disagree), but the disagreement in that source with the point at issue here is clear -- it says that Malvar was, "the last President of the Philippine Revolutionary Government." Better sourcing would be an improvement in both places, but I'm not aware of any. The point at issue here is related to the point of this talk page section for that other article, but there's no discussion between editors there. Can we please have some discussion about this here? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Written works item: Talang Buhay ng Supremo And. Bonifacio sa Kabite

This edit added mention of a work titled Talang Buhay ng Supremo And. Bonifacio sa Kabite, dated "1940s" to the Written works section of the article. The addition includes a <ref> with a bare URL which navigates to: Ileto, Reynaldo (2020). "FOREWORD to 'Supremo Andres Bonifacio in Cavite' by Hen. Emilio Aguinaldo". academia.org.. I've also stumbled across a newspaper article concerning this work: Angsioco, Elizabeth (February 29, 2020). "Supremo Andres Bonifacio in Cavite". Manila Standard..

That Ref'd Academia.org article quotes the first few lines of the named Introduction and provides a download link for a complete PDF file. The PDF file describes itself as "[final version for copyediting]" and introduces a work which it describes as handwritten by Aguinaldo and supplemental to his memoirs published in 1964 under the title of Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan. Those memoirs and that supplemental work would be WP:SELFPUB sources in this article, but probably would be citeable WP:PRIMARY sources in other WP articles about the Philippine Revolution and about notable revolutionaries. The final sentence of the Introduction work reads: "But after reading through the Talang Buhay, in both Aguinaldo’s Tagalog and the English translation provided here, none but the most close-minded or partisan reader will continue to accept unquestioningly the Manichean portrayal of the main protagonists in Heneral Luna." (italics in original, wikilink added by me -- and note the mention of "English translation provided here") -- this suggests to me that there may well be material in there of sufficient topical weight to be covered in other relevant Wikipedia articles.

It seems to me from the above that more ought to be done here than mentioning this introductory work in the Writen works section. Perhaps the article should have a section titled Memoirs or Works which lists and describes

• the 1964 memoirs, Talang Buhay
• the Talang Buhay ng Supremo supplement introduced by the work added by this edit (with English translation)
• Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy. "True Version of the Philippine Revolution". Authorama Public Domain Books. Retrieved 16 November 2007. (page 1 of 20 linked web pages)

and, probably, other works by Aguinaldo. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Aguinaldo's fountain pen

Butch Dalisay, a fountain pen buff, identified Emilio Aguinaldo's fountain pen on display in the Malacañang museum as being a Waterman 52. According to internet sources this pen was manufactured between 1915 and 1930. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.224.25 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD discussion re the honorific-prefix parameter in the infobox

Here, I made a WP:BOLD edit blanking the honorific-prefix parameter of the infobox by replacing it with an invisible comment reading, <-- consider [[MOS:PREFIX]] before defining this -->. The edit summary read: (WP:BOLD change, per my reading of MOS:PREFIX. Template:Infobox officeholder/doc does not provid[e] any further guidance on this.). I did this after seeing

this unexplained edit changing this infobox parameter from Generalissimo to Generalissimo - His Excellency, leaving an invisible comment saying <!--He does not use the prefix Excellency--> intact. (I take that comment as an indication that there have been previous changes to this parameter)

and

this almost immediate revert with an edit summary saying: (Undid revision 1099754505 by 130.105.100.38 (talk) per comment, and this seems to break the wikilink, please take to talk page)

My edit blanking the parameter followed that revert, and was undone by this unexplained edit, which changed that parameter to Generalissimo (unitalicized this time}.

MOS:PREFIX says:

In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to:

• styles and honorifics derived from a title, position or activity, [...]

I request that regular editors of this article discuss this and come to a consensus regarding whether this parameter should be defined and, if so, what definition is appropriate. My own opinion is that this parameter should be left blank with an invisible comment explaining why and stating that changes to its definition should be discussed on this talk page before being made. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
(follow up) It has been four days, and I see no discussion If I no discussion develops in the next few days, I will presume that the consensus of editors here is accept my suggestion above and to leave the honorific-prefix parameter in the infobox blank and, optionally, to discuss oficial titles and/or honorific prefixes used by Aguinaldo in various stages of his life as he held titled positions at appropriate points in the body of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I take the two edits here (Added info, citing a supporting source. What I found interesting here is that all three assumed the station of Generalissimo -- not just Aguinaldo.) by me and here (Logically and literally, Aguinaldo is the only Generalissimo in the Philippines, in the Military Rank structure Artemio Ricarte held the rank of Captain General and nothing more, while Mariano Trias holds the rank of Lieutenant General, Generalissimo is not equal of those ranks mentioned to Ricarte and Trias, Trias as Lieutenant General commands a larger quantity of a Division, Ricarte as Captain General commands a Corp, and Aguinaldo as Generalissimo commands a Field Army.) by RA9Markus as a continuation of this discussion. My edit was supported by a cite which, with typos and formatting errors subsequently corrected by User-duck (for which, thanks), is still in the article. The cited source (here) contains a statement apparently written by Artemio Ricarte on March 24, 1897, which I read as asserting that Aguinaldo, Trias, and Ricarte all acknowledged appointments to the station of Generalissimo on the previous evening. I don't know what source or sources support the assertion in the second of those edits but, apparently, there is a difference of viewpoints regarding who did and who did not hold that station. In the event of such a difference, WP:DUE would come into play. As I understand that part of the WP:NPOV policy, it, would require supporting sources to be cited and the differences between them summarized in the article. I ask editor RA9Markus to cite his supporting sources so that a consensus can be arrived at on how to handle the difference in viewpoints. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

(added) I happened to see this edit, which caused me to look at this image. The URL named on the image description page for the image is dead but a copy here, archived shortly after the upload, does not list Generalissimo among the positions he held prior to his becoming president of the First Philippine Republic. It does list the position General, Philippine Revolutionary Army as among those previously held positions. The source is malacanang.gov.ph -- the website of the presidential museum and library; as I write this, that URL appears to be dead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Following yet another problem in the article regarding the content of his parameter, I've removed it in this edit. Please come to an editorial consensus here regarding the use of this parameter in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Why was the Early Life section deleted?

Why was it deleted and can someone please put it back? AccomplishedTale7 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on infobox image required

This has been changed a few times (by EDITOR685422, Sanglahi86 and a few IP users) and has been reverted back to RA9Markus's preferred image for a number reasons (editors are idiots or blind). Please can we gain a consensus without name calling. Please read MOS:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic" Looking at Asian Independence leaders by Eric Watkins, a high quality reference work, I only see photographs of him. I would suggest that any photograph is more appropriate than a painting (even if official). Sciencefish (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to ping users @Sanglahi86:, @EDITOR685422:, @RA9Markus:

Sciencefish (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Support for the photograph image. The photograph File:Emilio Aguinaldo ca. 1919 (Restored).jpg is a valued image in Commons and is used in several other language-based Wikipedia articles of Aguinaldo; the photograph should be used as the lead image because the painting File:President Emilio Aguinal Official Portrait at Malacañang Palace.jpg is only a painter's representation of Aguinaldo. The painting may be placed in a related section or probably in Honors, Commemoration, or Portrayals sections. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the photograph because it's higher resolution and the painting has surface shine. DrKay (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Any photograph over a painting: Generally actual photographs are preferred rather than a painting. So I prefer Emilio Aguinaldo ca. 1919 (Restored).jpg. Though to play devil's advocate the photograph is dated 1919, years after Aguinaldo's presidency.

Though we have PresidentAguinaldo.jpg (1898) and File:Gen Aguinaldo.jpg (1899), lesser quality than the 1919 photo but an accurate representation of Aguinaldo during his "peak years" (presidency). Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Unsupported assertions re official recognition

The lead section asserted that Aguinaldo "is officially recognized as the first and the youngest president of the Philippines (1899–1901) and the first president of a constitutional republic in Asia." I recall seeing a list of Philippine presidents on a .gov.ph page which clearly listed Aguinaldo as the first president of the Philippines, but I couldn't locate that to cite it. I was unable to quickly locate an authoritative source clearly supporting an assertion to that effect; I did turn up this and this, but I don't think either of those amount to official recognition. This officially acknowledges the significance of the last of the several proclaimed governments he headed, but it doesn't mention him by name. Also, I found no official recognition of the other two points asserted about him in that quote above from the article.

Here, I have WP:BOLDly reworded the quoted snippet, including removal of the word "officially". I don't think official recognition should be asserted without a supporting cite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Added Battles

as I saw that there is "need clarification" in the records of battles of Aguinaldo, lets start with the battle of Timalan, this battle happened on May 1, 1897, 2 days before the battle of Naic itself, last week I went to the church of Naic near the Poblacion where the battle occured, and near the church at the right side I saw a Historical Marker verified by NHCP (National Historical Commission of the Philippines) and if my eyes are not good enough to be a proof for the historical marker, I searched for someone that have visual evidence coming from a fellow Filipino that also went to that place with the said historical marker which can be seen here in this link: (https//fb.watch/mOvvred-I3/)

And as for the Battle of Binakayan which occured on May 31, 1898 (the date where Emilio Aguinaldo planned the general uprising of the renewed second phase of the revolution) and also for the battle of Bacoor church, both of which happened in the same day, and both was mentioned in his book "True Version of the Philippine Revolution" in chapter VI, besides the book from Aguinaldo, I also remembered that this two battles was mentioned in Annual Report of Major General George Davis, and also from Santiago Alvarez' records but I may not be sure with the latter (Santiago Alvarez) because of too many history books I've read that I might be mixing it with other sources, I'll try to find other sources that mentions these the latter battle. RA9Markus (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

the official website of the local government of Bacoor has a specific article for the church's history,

(https://bacoor.gov.ph/tourism/st-michael-the-archangel-church/)

it was mentioned as the "third unfurling of the flag" since the second one happened after the battle in Binakayan (El polvorin) and the first unfurling occured after the battle in Alapan Imus. RA9Markus (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Controversy section reference

I am having a hard time to insert some references, could someone please insert these sources: 1)https://web.archive.org/web/20130625164313/http://malacanang.gov.ph/3622-artemio-ricarte-on-the-arrest-and-execution-of-bonifacio/ 2) Memoirs of General Artemio Ricarte 3) Recalling the Revolution: Memoirs of a Filipino General by Santiago Alvarez

to be inserted to the sentence that I will attach here: "In April 25, 1897, several complaints were sent to Aguinaldo, notably by Severino de las Alas, a known supporter and loyalist of Bonifacio, alongside with Jose Coronel, and many others, that Bonifacio and his men ransacked, pillaged and burned the town of Indang, stealing the carabaos and other work animals by force and killed them for food and terrorized the townspeople for being unable to give enough supplies and other provisions due to poor harvest"

Thank you. RA9Markus (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

See this edit. Note the edit summary. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but I was specifically referring now to the Bonifacio part, where I wish to insert three references (which Im having a hard time to do and cant figure it out by myself)

The three references is:

1)https://web.archive.org/web/20130625164313/http://malacanang.gov.ph/3622-artemio-ricarte-on-the-arrest-and-execution-of-bonifacio/

2) Memoirs of General Artemio Ricarte

3) Recalling the Revolution: Memoirs of a Filipino General by Santiago Alvarez"

To be inserted in this part of the sentence;

"In April 25, 1897, several complaints were sent to Aguinaldo, notably by Severino de las Alas, a known supporter and loyalist of Bonifacio, alongside with Jose Coronel, and many others, that Bonifacio and his men ransacked, pillaged and burned the town of Indang, stealing the carabaos and other work animals by force and killed them for food and terrorized the townspeople for being unable to give enough supplies and other provisions due to poor harvest."

The first reference is already at the main section however I previously removed it because it showed error after trying to add the latter two references. RA9Markus (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Allegiance

It seems to me that the Allegiance section of the infobox ought to be in chronological order. It also strikes me that the list of allegiances there is incomplete. That section currently looks like this:

• First Philippine Republic
• Republic of Biak-na-Bato
• Katipunan (Magdalo)

After a quick review, it seems to me that it ought to look like this:

• 1896 Katipunan (Magdalo)
• 1897 Republic of Biak-na-Bato
• 1899 Philippine Republic
• 1901 United States
• 1919 Insular government
• 1935 Commonwealth
• 1941 Japan
• 1943 Republic under Japan
• 1946 Republic of the Philippines

The 1919 date above comes from the dates of the available Philippine flags in {{Country data Philippines}}; perhaps there should be a footnote clarifying that. Perhaps other points need clarification.

(inserted) I tweaked the list above adding two sets of doubled flags using the flag images from the WP articles linked there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I propose that this be changed. I haven't WP:BOLDly made the change in the article because I imagine that there will be some discussion about this. One possible alternative to this allegiance list in the infobox might be to simply indicate there that Aguinaldo held allegiance to the Philippines and clarify that with a footnote saying that he worked to bring about Philippine independence during periods when the Philippines was governed by a colonial power.

Please discuss thoughts or objections below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Having seen neither objection nor discussion, I have moved the revised list into the infobox. This probably needs some clarification in the article, but I haven't done anything towards that. I've had a family tragedy, and my Wikipedia editing activities will be reduced for a while. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

If we gonna include all allegiances, then I think we must also include the rest of the government that Aguinaldo headed that was not included on the new edit, such as Tejeros Government, Dictatorial Government 1898 and the 1898 Revolutionary Government before the 1899 First Philippine Republic. RA9Markus (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

An infobox is a very brief overview -- see MOS:INFOBOX -- more detail should appear in the article body. If you'll read the above, you'll see that I did suggest one possible alternative approach -- that approach seemed too much like unsupported POV to me. IMHO, it might work if a supporting reliable source could be cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I also want to ask why and how the Insular Government's year in the allegiance section is "1919"? Because the year could be 1902 for the Philippine Organic Act or the 1916 for Jones Law RA9Markus (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This does need clarification and may well need refinement. This was intended to represent the year of Aguinaldo taking up that allegiance, not the year of the appearance of that government -- though that year might do as well. The year given there is admittedly unsupported and was taken from the appearance date of the Philippine flag shown there as it appears in {{wikidata Philippines}} (and see List of flags of the Philippines and this). Improvement is encouraged. Please note that, as explained above, I'm not currently paying as much attention to WP as I normally do -- I may not be able to engage in much back&forth discussion re this. (updated) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Short description

There has just been an edit changing the short description of this article. The pregression of short descriptions has been:

• First president of the Philippines, revolutionary leader (March 26, 2019)
• First president of the Philippines, revolutionary leader (1869–1964 (January 13, 2022)
• 1st president of the Philippines, revolutionary leader (1869–1964) (March 28, 2022)
• President of the Philippines from 1899 to 1901 (March 29, 2022)
• Revolutionary leader declared as President (August 18, 2024)
• A Filipino revolutionary leader who declared as the first president of the Philippines (August 19, 2024)
• Filipino revolutionary leader who was declared as the first president of the Philippines (October 4, 2024)
• Filipino revolutionary leader ; Declared as the first president of the Philippines (([October 4, 2024)as president, from 1898-1899
• President of the Philippines from 1899 to 1901 (January 24, 2025)

Can we please discuss this here and come to a consensus of what the short description of this article ought to be?

I think that the current short description ad/or past short descriptions is inaccurate by omission or commission on at least the following points

1. Aguinaldo headed at least four declared revolutionary governments in the Philippines:
   * Republic of Biak-na-Bato, as President, in 1897
   * Dictatorial Government of the Philippines, as Dictator, in 1898
   * Revolutionary Government of the Philippines, as President, 1898-1899
   * First Philippine Republic, as President, from 1899-1901
   These were all insurgent governments disputing the generally recognized status of the Philippines as a territory of another sovereign nation -- none of those insurgencies succeeded in wresting that sovereignty away from the colonial power. This is described in the article.
2. At least one other person declared as president of an insurgent Philippine government prior to Aguinaldo; Andres Bonifacio, in the Tagalog Republic in 1896. and as "Acting President" of a nascent insurgent government declared as "The Sovereign Nation" in 1897 in the Acta de Tejeros.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Having seen no discussion, I propose the following as a short description for this article about Emilio Aguinaldo:

Philippine revolutionary leader who headed several insurgent governments.

Barring objection and further discussion, I intend to make this change in a few days. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I made the change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD reversion (October 2025)

I have reverted this WP:BOLD edit,. Please see WP:BRD and discuss here. I have not done a careful reading of the changes this would involve, but a few things stood out on a quick look.

• The edit seems to be POV-driven.
• Regarding the change to the article short description, the Philippines was still under Spanish sovereignty during this period. Aguinaldo was a revolutionary leader who headed an insurgency initially seeking to replace Spanish sovereignty with a government headed by himself. It is clear that he had considered himself head of the Philippine government from the time he declared his insurgent dictatorial government (and had considered himself the head ov insurgent governments prior to that -- e.g., the failed insurgent Republic of Biak-na-Bato), but the Spanish surrendered the Philippines to American forces on August 13, 1898, and the US established the Military Government of the Philippine Islands on August 14. That government endured until ratification of the Treaty of Paris (1898) on August 11, 1901 April 11, 1899, passing sovereignty from Spain to the US.
• The addition of the phrase ", in spite of the fact that Spain had lost or was losing its governance and presence in the Philippines" is unsupported by the cite which follows its insertion. In fact, Spain was and the US were then in the process of setting up negotiations that would lead to the Treaty of Paris (1898) that would cede Spanish sovereignty to the US. Aguinaldo was not involved in that.

Wtmitchell Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC) (updated)

Before attempting any more editorial action, I would suggest that it would be wiser to keep the concerned edits, with the following answers to each objection:

- Naturally, any edit that introduces new perspectives can be construed as POV-driven. The edits focus on the Revolutionary Government and First Philippine Republic of which the article's subject was intricately involved in, having led the two regimes. It would be amiss to neglect these events because they run against an inherently biased narrative, i.e. that Filipinos held no sovereign state in the interim between the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars.

- Sovereignty in the Philippines was not as clear-cut as the Treaty of Paris implies, which has a direct impact on the characterization of Aguinaldo as a Philippine president. It has to be stated that before the Treaty of Paris, the Philippines was never surrendered in whole to any power, American or Filipino. Rather, as will be demonstrated, the Philippines was taken piecemeal. On August 13, Spain surrendered Manila, meaning by this the walled capital or Intramuros, and strictly only Manila to the Americans to evade surrendering it to the Filipinos. Elsewhere, however, the remaining Spanish presence in the islands fell to Filipino power. In brief summary: surrounding the time of the Revolutionary Government's establishment, Spanish authority, civil and military, had either been forced out of or surrendered to Aguinaldo's forces in Cavite, Manila (province, not the city), Bulacan, Batangas, Laguna, Tayabas, Pampanga, Tarlac, Morong, Bataan, Nueva Ecija, and Mindoro. Whether Spanish power was forced out or surrendered, it was then succeeded by local government established according to decrees promulgated by Aguinaldo. Ilocos Norte and Sur, Aparri, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, Cagayan, Romblon, Camarines, Albay, Samar, Leyte, Cebu, Iloilo, Antique, Capiz, and both provinces of Negros received the same treatment, completed by the end of 1898, with the government's reach extending into Mindanao as 1898 ended and into 1899.

These provinces were governed under the Revolutionary Government, not Spain or America. Their local governments, some of which have been visited first-hand and discussed in none other than the account of American naval officers, had their head of state and government in Aguinaldo; see the incident in Iloilo when the authorities of the Federal State of the Visayas refused American entry, saying they would not allow them to land unless Aguinaldo approved it. Having superseded the Spanish regime in its territory, and having a duly constituted regime, with both a central power and autonomous local governments, I see no reason to call this government insurgent. Who would they be insurgent against? Spain had either left or surrendered directly. America never asserted title over the government's jurisdiction until the Treaty of Paris which will be treated of later on. It does not remain for foreign governments to decide via diplomatic recognition whether or not Aguinaldo's government was independent, for the doctrine that governments instituted by and that rule over willing people are truly independent and sovereign was developed precisely in the wake of the independence of the Latin American republics, and used to justify affording them de jure recognition. This would mean that, thanks to their predecessors, the Revolutionary Government enjoyed the legal precedent that gave them validity, regardless of whether or not any foreign power invoked it.

It then follows that if Spain had effectively lost its power in the Philippines, it could not have "ceded" them to the United States without the latter having to square up with the presence of Aguinaldo's government established in the vacuum it created. The United States could not exercise the sovereignty ceded by Spain without eliminating the government already exercising it, that is to say, Aguinaldo's government.

It likewise follows that, because the Revolutionary Government was superseded by the First Republic, the latter inherited the sovereignty of the former, while forming a full constitution state, the first such one created by and belonging to the Philippine people. Aguinaldo, having been elected under the regime and constitution of the First Republic, is therefore the first President of the Philippines, and the successive Philippine states recognized the First Republic as the original Philippine state: see comments by 1935 Constitutional Convention delegate Jose Aruego, and Supreme Court decisions G.R. No. 192935, identifying Aguinaldo as the beginning of presidential succession, and G.R. No. 248395, identifying the 1899 constitution as the beginning of constitutional succession.

- My answer to the third point is fleshed out in my answer to the second. Right it is that Aguinaldo's government was denied participation, and it remains that it was his government remained a true power independent of either Spain or America.

This article is already a very well-written one. It would do it good to flesh out the parts that deal with why he has been so important in the first place. ElFilipinismo (talk) 09:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

FYI, I made this somewhat-related edit to this article before responding here. Without having explored the details, I generally follow your argument above. It is not well supported there, and I have not examined the underlying sources that you do mention. I imagine that most or all of the factual points you raise are supportable. However, your interpretation as a WP editor of the import of those point does not have due weight for article inclusion without supporting citations. Also, this article does not exist in a vacuum and, IMO, your points about Philippine sovereignty should be argued on the talk page of the Sovereignty of the Philippines article rather than here. One paragraph in that article currently reads:

As a consequence of its defeat, Spain transferred its rights over the Philippine archipelago to the U.S., the existence of the Revolutionary Government notwithstanding.[32] On December 10, 1898, the Treaty of Paris was signed between Spain and the United States, ending the Spanish–American War. In article III of this treaty, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States.[33]

(see supporting citations numbered 32 and 33 there in that article's References section). Consequent changes and additions made in that article could then be migrated as appropriate, summary-style, to other articlers touching on that topic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC) (updated}

It is good to have brought up due weight; the information listed in my previous answer was from quite a disorganized jumble of resources that I should have time to collate in the future, perhaps for a more comprehensive rework of this article. However, it seems amiss to characterize the points emphasized in the edit such as "Aguinaldo was the President of the Philippines" as a minority view as defined in Wikipedia:Due, because it is the official stance and policy of the Philippine government that its Presidency originated in that of Aguinaldo. Of course, there is no single decision or law or executive order dedicated to that effect, and it is rather treated as a given and has been recognized as such across the government. Examples from each branch include the previously mentioned G.R. No. 192935, his identification as President in Republic Act 9187, and Proclamation No. 343 by President Arroyo renaming a room in Malacañang on the basis that he, a Philippine president, was kept there as prisoner.

Regarding the assertions made over the sovereignty of the Philippines (the topic, not the article), I've come to agree that differences should be settled on the existing dedicated article before affecting other concerned articles. The example of the Treaty of Paris, like I said, is not as clear-cut as its parties would have liked to be assumed, and the Sovereignty article ideally serves as a good basis for the question of "who-rules-who" so that articles that tap into the issue won't suffer from disparate sources. ElFilipinismo (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems that we are in general agreement. I suggest adding a short subsection in the Controversies section titled something like "As President", identifying Sovereignty of the Philippines as {{main article}}, asserting that Aguinaldo is described as President in some official and authoritative sources in connection with insurgent governments he headed in revolution against outside soverrignties, and citing some of those sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it would not be seemly to contest his title as first President. His recognition is linked with the recognition of the First Republic. Official characterization of that regime in both government policy and scholarly works has evolved since its formation. Naturally, its constituents would characterize it as sovereign, while those attempting to usurp its power would characterize it as insurgent. The characterization of "insurgent" ceased being dichotomous in a legal sense in the 1917 Supreme Court decision G.R. No. 12616, which says: "In May, 1899, the war between the American and Revolutionary forces in the Philippines was on. The Filipino Government, from the standpoint of International Law, was of the class known as "de facto government." (Macleod vs. U. S. [1912], 229 U. S., 416.)" This could be further elaborated in a discussion on the Philippine sovereignty article.

The Philippine government demonstrably further eliminated the "insurgent" characterization and, aside from recognizing its de facto sovereignty, traced its origin as a sovereign state to the First Republic. Naturally, the rapid change in characterization found more of a place in Philippine sources, with, for example, the landmark works of Teodoro Agoncillo, "Malolos: Crisis of the Republic" and "History of the Filipino People", establishing and then taking it as a given that the Philippine presidency originated in that of Aguinaldo in 1899, with his leadership of the previous Revolutionary Government having served as a preliminary but not quite official term because of the autocratic character of his assuming its leadership.

It therefore seems meet to characterize Aguinaldo according to the current prevailing characterization of him, which is that of the first President of the Philippines. For good measure, however, since there is already a section dedicated to his Revolution and Republic era controversies (others are discussed within the sections pertaining to the part of his life where they happened), it might be well to summarize the political, legal, and historiographical contest over his legitimacy, pointing to the Philippine sovereignty article for a fuller view, expanding beyond things that directly or intensively involved Aguinaldo. ElFilipinismo (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

IMO, most of that bears on the sovereignty issue and ought to be discussed at talk:Sovereignty of the Philippines rather than here. I think that you oversimplify the question of the Philippine government (a later government, later in the timeline, in retrospect, I guess) "recognizing" the sovereignty of the First Philippine Republic. That would contradict my reading of the Philippine Organic Act (see e.g., sections 3 and 6 here; FWIW, please note that I have sourced that from the officialgazette.gov.ph website) It also appears to reinterpret Aguinaldo's April 19, 1901 manifesto in which he acknowledged that the Filipino people, "have already united around the glorious sovereign banner of the United States." In his concluding paragraph there, Aguinaldo said, "By acknowledging and accepting the sovereignty of the United States throughout the Philippine Archipelago, as I now do, and without any reservation whatsoever, I believe that I am serving thee, my beloved country." My understanding of that is that Aguinaldo accepted the sovereignty of the U.S. I'm not qualified to opine on the fine point of whether the responsibilities of sovereignty passed with the exchange of ratifications or with the signing (subject to confirmation by ratification), but I see Aguinaldo's role in all of that as the role of an unsuccessful insurgent against the sovereign power. AFAICS, sovereignty passed from Spain to the U.S., not from Spain to the First Republic and then to the U.S. and also not from Spain to the U.S. and then to the First Republic and then back to the U.S. Most of that has more relevance to the Sovereignty of the Philippines article than to this one. I reiterate my suggestion above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

It then remains that the Aguinaldo article can't be reworked because a lot of the work I believe that needs to be done involves the characterization of his presidency and governments, inextricably tied to the issue of sovereignty. Because that needs to be sorted out before this article can receive a reworking, I have no issue with creating a centralized discussion on the sovereignty issue on the talk page of Sovereignty of the Philippines. ElFilipinismo (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Here, I have WP:BOLDly tried to action my suggestion above, hoping that further discussion re independence and sovereignty will take place on the talk pages of articles concerned directly with those topics. Changes in thopse articles might be reflected subsequently in chanmges here.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)