Talk:Philippine Army

---

Rearranging the table of equipments

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

---

I want to rearrange the order of the table like in this order first is the small arms (infantry weapons), next is the armoured vehicles followed by utility vehicles, then the artillery, next is the aircrafts and the last one is the watercrafts. Does anyone agree with this?

06:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii (talk • contribs)

• Take it ONE step at a time, young'un. FWIW, you're still new here and I would rather that you update things in a step-by-step fashion instead of doing it the wholesale method. Should there be any major update, everything has to be: 1.) relevant (per WP:Relevance); 2.) notable (per WP:Notability); 3.) verifiable (per WP:Verifiability); and lastly 4.) comforming to our WP:Manual of Style, that goes for the non-addition of photo in the columns and flag-icons where they are not supposed to be present in. Any other question you want to raise here? Another thing, learn to sign off every of your comment with ~~~~ which would automatically timestamp and add your username for us to know, thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Updated the Philippine Army Article based on the Philippine Army Official Website -Geeciii (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Geeciii, you just committed a cardinal sin by copy-&-paste from the website (Read: WP:Copyrights). --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Adding a new column for photos in the table of equipments

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

---

I want to add photos of the different equipments. The photos that I will use is from their respective articles. They will be put on the first column. Does everyone okay with my idea? 06:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeciii (talk • contribs)

• Geeciii, use photos of photos is OK as long as they are correct and the photos itself are Philippine Army assets, not coming from another army or ground force. And do not take out information anyhow.

Phichanad (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not alright as Geeciii has a strong tendency to use related as well as unrelated photos that are not directly pictured in PA service for use in the column. Instead, please focus on the building up of the article page content rather than photos when the scarcity of such photos is profusely profound and that such photos are used mainly for the cosmetic upgrading of the article page. Geeciii, try to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that we are not paid up website for the promotion of any entity and/or person on earth. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Artemio Ricarte as the father of the Philippine Army

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

The lead section of this article asserts, "Though the Philippine Army grew out of forces which fought in opposition to and which defeated forces led by General Artemio Ricarte, General Ricarte is considered to be the father of the Philippine Army." This is supported by an apparently dead link source. If the "father of the Philippine Army" assertion is supportable, the rest of the assertion here needs support and clarification. It seems to me that if this is to remain in the article, it should be supported, clarified, and expanded somewhere outside of the lead section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

He is regarded as Father of the Philippine Army because of his election as Captain General, and the integration of the separated Katipunan units under the Tejeros mandated Philippine Revolutionary Army under him. It just turns out that Ricarte had not come into good terms with Aguinaldo, especially on the Pact of Biak-na-Bato (it must be a treaty anyway, not a pact), so maybe that's where they got that statement. For me, its better that it should be removed altogether. Just retain Ricarte being the father of the Philippine Army. Arius1998 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstoff, I acknowledge my error above in saying that the content at issue is in the lead section; it is in the History section.

The assertion that Ricarte is regarded as the Father of the Philippine Army cries out for solid support and lots of well supported clarification -- at least that seems so to me, given the Philippine Army's history as having been initially organized from among former holders of reserve commissions in the United States Army, from among former officers of the Philippine Scouts and Philippine Constabulary and given Ricarte's history as having been a senior commander of forces which were in armed conflict with these predecessor organizations. I am not disputing that Ricarte might be so regarded by some people. If it is to be asserted (even implied) that the Philippine Army as an organization holds Ricarte in that regard, however, it seems to me that ought to be better supported and (given those histories I mentioned, and given some of the unsupported info in Artemio Ricarte#Post-War Era) it seems to me that clarification about how he came to be so regarded ought to be provided. I suspect that my not being a nationalistic Filipino has much to do with with my "take" on this.

The Philippine Army web page located at http://www.afp.mil.ph/index.php/2013-04-30-08-34-40/2013-04-30-07-43-43 does say that Ricarte is considered the Father of the Philippine Army. That Philippine Army web page, however, seems to be based on an earlier version of this very Wikipedia article -- probably sometime subsequent to this edit by me. I'm wondering whether whoever authorized or emplaced that Philippine Army web page read the Wikipedia article it came from closely enough to pick up on the assertion there about Ricarte being considered the Father of the Philippine Army. If that assertion is valid it ought to be supportable by reliable sources and, as I said above, it cries out for clarification.

It seems to me that there is a tendency in the Philippines to sometimes gloss over what one book calls "the American half-century" in Philippine history. Something like that seems to be at work here -- but perhaps the clarification I'm looking for here would clear that up for me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

TRUE: General Artemio Ricarte was the Capitan-General of the "Ejercito en la Republica de la Filipina" (Philippine Revolutionary Army). General Ricarte was never was never under the command of the U.S Army.

FALSE: General Ricarte is the "Father" of the Philippine Army. The roots of the Philippine Army are the Philippine Scouts and the Philippine Constabulary under the Americans.

TRUE: The Father of the Philippine Army as established and organized under the National Defense Act of December 21,1935 (Commonwealth Act No. 1) is General Douglas MacArthur. He was the Field Marshal of the American-led and backed Philippine Army.

TRUE: The founding date of the present day Philippine Army was 1935 not 1898.

SOLUTION: Such claims can only be valid if there is a new law recognizing that the Philippine Army was officially founded on March 22, 1897 and organized by the First Philippine Republic. Unfortunately, the only existing law regarding the formation of the Philippine Army is the National Defense Act of December 21,1935 (Commonwealth Act No. 1) under the Americans.

PROPOSAL: Therefore the questionable entries regarding Artemio Ricarte as Father or being a part of the Philippine Army should be deleted. You can not cite Wikipedia as your source -- refer to Verifiability guidelines. TheMilitaryExpert (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Note: Updated article by removing the disputed sentence as per Wikipedia Verifiability guidelines and a clear consensus. TheMilitaryExpert (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to add some information in re the above closed discussion.

• Today's version of this article says in part, "The Philippine Army, as the ground forces branch of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), traces its roots to the Tejeros Convention of March 22, 1897, ...".
• The solution statement above says in part, "Such claims can only be valid if there is a new law recognizing that the Philippine Army was officially founded on March 22, 1897 and organized by the First Philippine Republic. "
• I happened to stumble over Proclamation No. 447, s. 1989 today which mandates in part, "That March 22 be observed as the anniversary of the Philippine Army, a major branch of the Armed Forces of the Philippines."
• The current version of the official Philippine Army History web page Doesn't mention the roles which the Philippine Scouts (PS) and the Philippine Constabulary (PC) played in the history of the current Philippine Army, saying instead "Between [1901] until 1935, the revolutionary army lost many of its cohorts in sporadic engagements with American troops, but never lost its cause."

I think that it is fair and probably supportable to say, as the article now does, that the Philippine Army "traces its roots to the Tejeros Convention of March 22, 1897" (traces its own roots, that is). I don't have reference material handy just now but, as I remember having gone through this previously, other sources trace the roots of the present day Philippine Army more directly to the PS and the PC than to the Tejeros Convention and the Philippine Revolutionary Army which grew out of it. I note that this article does mention the PS and PC in regard to the history of the Philippine Army. I'm not at this point suggesting a change in the article but, having put this info together, I thought that I would document it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this the PRA is the Procedure of the Philippine Army. The Philippine Constabulary is not a even a true military force it was a police force not a military. The Philippine Scouts is indeed an army but not a procedure of the Philippine Army Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Philippine Revolutionary Army

I have moved the initial paragraph of the Philippine–American War (1899-1902) section of this article here for discussion. That paragraph concerned itself with the Philippine Revolutionary Army (PRA), and was added without support in this October 2016 edit. As it appeared before I moved it here, it read as follows:

On February 4, 1899, the Filipino-American War broke out. Due to the superiority of American arms, the Filipinos fell from one position to another until they were forced to disband. Even after the official cessation of hostilities and as the Americans have established government in 1901, the Filipino revolutionaries continued their struggle for freedom. Between that time until 1935, the revolutionary army lost many of its cohorts in sporadic engagements with American troops, but never lost its cause.

What caught my eye about the paragraph was the bit reading "the Filipinos fell from one position to another". "fell" there was probably intended to read "fell back".

However, what grates on me about this paragraph is that it begs the inference that the PRA was an organizational forerunner of the current Philippine Army. That has been much discussed in the past and, as far as I can see, is simply not true. In this speech marking the centennial of the end of the Philippine-American War, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo acknowledged that the First Philippine Republic ended with the capture of Emilio Aguinaldo on March 23, 1901, commented that some Filipino generals fought on after that date under the leadership of General Miguel Malvar, and acknowledged asserted that the war ended with the surrender of General Malvar on April 16, 1902. As far as I can see, the Philippine Revouutionary Army as an entity ceased to exist on or prior to April 16, 1902 and the Philippines had no army from that point up until the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 1 on December 21, 1935.

I suggest that the paragraph quoted above be simply removed from the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as a procedure of the Philippine Army

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as Procedure of the Philippine Army. The PRA was disbanded in 1899 to begin the Guerrilla War against the Americans so there is still a Army even after it was disbanded by Aguinaldo even after he was captured the 1st Philippine Republic has still a Army Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that this comment figs more appropriately in the #Assertions in the infobox and in the lead disputed section below. I will re-echo it at the bottom of that section and will respond there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as a procedure of the Philippine Army

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as Procedure of the Philippine Army. The PRA was disbanded in 1899 to begin the Guerrilla War against the Americans so there is still a Army even after it was disbanded by Aguinaldo even after he was captured the 1st Philippine Republic has still a Army Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Lack of organizational relationship between PA and PRA

Here, I've made a WP:BOLD change in the article. It's a minor change in content, but it's a major change in the thinking behind the article. Basically, it is a change to this edit to the article which was made on October 9, 2016. That edit inserted three paragraphs into the article with an edit summary saying →‎History: Fixed typo, Fixed grammar. I only just now noticed the import of the one line of that earlier edit which I have now changed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Assertions in the infobox and in the lead disputed

Here, I've tagged three elements of the list in the battles section of the infobox as Disputed, Philippine Revolutionary War, Spanish–American War, and Philippine–American War. A completely separate entity, the Philippine Revolutionary Army, did have engagements in those conflicts but, as I understand the relevant history, that entity has no organizational relationship with the present-day Philippine Army or with any of its predecessor organizations. In fact, that organization was defeated by opposing organizations which included the Macabebe Scouts and the Philippine Scouts, two entities which are predecessor organizations of the present day Philippine Army. The inclusion of the disputed items in the infobox begs the interpretation that the Philippine Revolutionary Army was a predecessor organization to the present-day Philippine Army and, as I understand it, such an interpretation would be incorrect.

I've also added a disputed tag to the assertion in the lead section reading, "The Army traces its roots in the Philippines to the Philippine Revolutionary Army founded in 1897". That assertion came into the article without support and in a slightly different form in this April 2021 edit, but I recall participating in related talk page discussions dating back to this (and, further back, this 2011 edit and, probably, earlier edits). I actually may have come up with the "traces their roots" phrase in order to distinguish belief from reality when earlier instances of the websites of the Philippine Army and/or the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) contained content stating or implying that. As far as see now, neither of those entities currently do trace their roots back in that way. Also, WP:LEAD guideline says, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."; If the thrust of this assertion is valid, the article body ought to contain citation-supported presentation of more detail about this than is provided by this unsupported assertion in the lead with no presentation of relevant detail of detail in the article body.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Having mentioned the PMA above, I took a look at the article about that institution and saw mention of PP 30 s.1998 which, I think, relates to this. That proclamation acknowledges that the roots of the PMA lie with a Constabulary School created by the American colonial government in 1905 and also mentions a conclusion that "the Academia Militar established by the President of the Philippine Revolutionary government and General-In-Chief Emilio Aguinaldo, on October 25, 1898, in the town of Malolos, Bulacan, is the more befitting institution to which the PMA should be anchored". I think that there is some of that going on here, with perceived befittingness taking precedence over historical fact. I don't think that ordering of precedence is appropriate in an encyclopedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Having seen neither objection nor discussion since this edit several days ago, I have removed the disputed content in this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The following comment was placed in an earlier section (here) byArmy-Ground Warfare (talk · contribs):

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as Procedure of the Philippine Army. The PRA was disbanded in 1899 to begin the Guerrilla War against the Americans so there is still a Army even after it was disbanded by Aguinaldo even after he was captured the 1st Philippine Republic has still a Army [[User:Army-Ground Warfare|Army-Ground Warfare]] ([[User talk:Army-Ground Warfare|talk]]) 08:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that comment fits more appropriately into this discussion here, and will respond here. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that right now; I'll try to get to this in a few hours. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as a procedure of the Philippine Army

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 Read this. The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only deafeted in the Philippine-American War. The PRA is still considered as Procedure of the Philippine Army. The PRA was disbanded in 1899 to begin the Guerrilla War against the Americans so there is still a Army even after it was disbanded by Aguinaldo even after he was captured the 1st Philippine Republic has still a Army Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Gen.Antonio Luna is the one who establish the Academia Militar in October 1898 in Malolos not Emilio Aguinaldo. The Philippine Revolutionary Army is a Army While the Philippine Constabulary is a Gendarmerie its not even a Army. do you even know what's the different between the Army and a Gendarmerie. the Army is responsible for Ground Warfare while the Gendarmerie is a Military Force that has duty on Civilian Population Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about my slow response -- I'm pretty busy outside of WP at present. I've reverted I've indented the comment above for readability (see WP:TPO),

I'm not sure what "a procedure of the Philippine Army" is or who considers this to be a good characterization of the PRA. That other WP article on the Philippine Revolutionary Army covers the PRA, and that organization is separate from the Philippine Army which is the topic of this article and which (quoting from the article lead) "was established on December 21, 1935". I have looked at this source, a page on the Philippine Army website, which you mentioned above and I see that it mentions the PRA as a part of the background of the current Philippine Army and that it neglects to mention that the PRA was defeated by forces which included the Philippine Scouts and Philippine Constabulary which, as described to some extent in the article and more completely in sources it cites, were later part of building the organization which is the topic of the article. Actually, from looking at that source you linked, I'm not copleatly clear on what the official position of the Philippine Army organization is on whether the PRA and the current PA are two parts of one organization that has been in existence since the founding of the PRA or whether the PRA is a part of the background leading up to the establishment of the current Philippine Army organization. If there is a source which makes this clearer, and if that boils down to different viewpoints on this which are contained in separate reliable sources, perhaps this article and the PRA article both need expansion to clarify both viewpoints, per WP:DUE.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
(added) I took a look at the Philippine Army website ([1]) and I don't see a clear path to the web page you linked above from the Hamburger button menu there or from the About page ([2]). I'm not clear that the content of the page you linked is intended as a statement in the voice of the Philippine army. However, I do see "For 122 years, the Philippine Army served as the protector of the Filipinos and a key player of nation building." on that About page. 2021 minus 122 is 1899 and would not agree with the claimed March 22, 1897 date which I reverted from the article here. However, it does not agree with the currently claimed December 21, 1935 date taken from National Defense Act of 1935 which established the current Philippine Army as an organization either. It looks to me as if this article needs some clarification regarding that disparity. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
(added) On further checking, I see that that 122 year figure is outdated. FWICS, it was added at or near this April 6, 2019 version of that web page. Previous versions I've found of that page (e.g., this one) differ, but the full page might not be archived. In any case, that figure of 122 years doesn't look reliable on that page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The Philippine Constabulary is not even a Military Force. The Philippine Scout is a Army it is part of the United States Army but not a procedure. it is the Philippine Revolutionary Army that is the procedure of the Philippine Army Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the indent level of your comment above for better readability, per WP:TPO. I said above, "the PRA was defeated by forces which included the Philippine Scouts and Philippine Constabulary". That was from memory and I did not reconfirm details, but I believe that is confirmable. That was not a specific suggested modification to the content of this article, though. I still do not understand what you mean by "a procedure". I think that you may mean "a predecessor". One definition of that is "a thing that has been followed or replaced by another". I believe that it is inaccurate to assert that the the current Philippine Army replaced the PRA; if you know of a reliable source asserting that, please cite that reliable source. If a citeable reliable source does assert that, information about that might need to be reflected in this article, following WP:DUE.

I am aware that some Philippine nationalistic sentiment would draw a continuing relationship between the PRA of 1897-1899 and the Philippine Army created in 1935 which is the topic of this article. Perhaps this article should contain information about that. I'm not a good enough wordsmith to write that well, though, and I don't know what reliable sources might be cited in support. Perhaps you can provide concrete suggestions regarding that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139

Read this.

The Philippine Revolutionary Army was only defeated in 1902 even if it is defeated it still consider as its Successor. and also explain how the PC and the PS become the Philippine Army Successor. when the Armed Forces of the Philippines was established it has 3 branch the Philippine Constabulary,Philippine Army,Philippine Navy if you ask where is the Air Force it did not yet exist although it exist as a Philippine Army Air Corps the Philippine Army Air Corps is part of the Philippine Army it is not yet a seperate main branch. the Philippine Air Force was established in 1947 as a main branch of the AFP. In 1947 we had 4 branch the Philippine Army,Philippine Navy,Philippine Air Force,Philippine Constabulary.

The Philippine Constabulary is a Police Force its modern day successor is the Philippine National Police when the PC was Disband in 1991 it was replace by the the Philippine National Police. The Philippine Scout is a United States Army Division Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I have again corrected the indent level of your comment for readability. You've linked that web page several times, and I have looked at it several times. As I have remarked and explained above, I do not see it as clearly intended as an assertion by the Philippine Army. Also, I disagree that the source you cited asserts what you represent it as asserting -- one might as well represent it as asserting that the Philippine Army is a successor of the Philippine land forces described there as having been tested in 1521 and of pre-colonization forces it mentions. That source also has other problems, some of which I have touched on above. I'm afraid that I have come to view you as a POV-pushing vandal not interested in improving this article through collaborative discussion with other editors. I do not believe that further discussion with you is warranted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139. Read this and Don't cry about blocking me. The Philippine Revolutionary Army is the precede of the Philippine Army. Explain how the Philippine Revolutionary Army successor is the Philippine Army Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

As with earlier comments, I've corrected the indentation above for readability. I don't understand what I'm being asked to explain but I think it is clear that the current PA is not the successor of the PRA. here I have added a bit to the article following on bits of previous exchanges relating to the Scouts and the Constabulary. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139

Read this. Pls explain how it become that the PA is not the successor of the PRA. The PRA is the PA because when the PRA was only defeated in 1902 in 1935 it was only considered as rebirth Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

As with earlier comments, I've corrected the indentation of your comment above for readability.

1. As I explained to you here, AFAICS, the content at that URL is devoid of any WP:RS significance.
2. As I described previously here, and as is described in this article, in sources it cites, and elsewhere, the PA grew out of forces which defeated the PRA.
3. As described on the PRA web page and in sources cited there, the PRA was effectively dissolved on November 13, 1899. That was a long time prior to the December 21, 1935 founding date of the Philippine Army organization which is the topic of this article, and a lot happened in the meantime.

As I said above regarding your "rebirth" assertion, "I am aware that some Philippine nationalistic sentiment would draw a continuing relationship between the PRA of 1897-1899 and the Philippine Army created in 1935 which is the topic of this article. Perhaps this article should contain information about that. I'm not a good enough wordsmith to write that well, though, and I don't know what reliable sources might be cited in support. Perhaps you can provide concrete suggestions regarding that." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139.

Read this

the Philippine Revolutionary Army was indeed disbanded in 1899 but after it was Disband there are still Remanents of the PRA who continue to fight until 1902 where they were defeated.

The Philippine Army did not defeat the Philippine Revolutionary Army they did not even engage in the Philippine-American War. The Philippine Constabulary successor is the Philippine National Police the Philippine Scout is a United States Army Division no preceded by the Philippine Army

As previously, I have corrected the indentation of your comments for readability. I don't think that continued interchanges between the two of us is accomplishing anything useful regarding improvement of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139 read this in your last message you wanna know where did i get the rebirth of the Philippine Army in 1935 Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: Here, I have reverted your latest edit warring changes to the article. I will consider further changes similar to this to be deserving of blocking of your editing privileges, with an initial block period of three months. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.army.mil.ph/home/index.php/component/sppagebuilder/?view=page&id=139. Read This.

Your goona block me now because you cant win in this dispute?. Well because your wrong and you know you can't win in this dispute your just ignoring what i commented

The Philippine Army is founded in March 22 1897. The December 21 1935 is only consider as a Rebirth of the Philippine Army Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your just making your own history of the philippine army that is a hoax Army-Ground Warfare (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Name in infobox

Here, I have WP:BOLDly removed mention of the Spanish translation of the name (as Ejército del Tierra del Filipinas) from the infobox. I did this after seeing several edits changing the Spanish version of the name from Ejército Filipino. That former Spanish translation appeared without explanation in this October 25, 2020 edit. I don't know what the justification was for inserting the Spanish translation, but one possible justification might be the mention of Spanish along with Arabic in Article XIV, Section 7 of the Philippine constitution as an official regional language. That justification, however, might imply that translations of the name in Arabic and in other official regional languages ought to be listed as well as Spanish. Another possible justification might be the past history of the Philippines as a colony or Spain, but I don't see due weight in that connection for the mention of the Spanish translation of the name of this particular article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)