text:
Talk:Philippine–American War

Moro Rebellion, Republic of Zamboanga not part of Philippine American War
Going by WP:LEAD and the current content in that section and the article body here, the Moro Rebellion is part of the Aftermath. It does overlap the war period very slightly date-wise but, aside from that, that conflict was between the rebels and the post-war Insular Government of the Philippine Islands.

I'm not sure re the Republic of Zamboanga but I think that any relevance mentioned should be clarified and supported. What was the connection, if any, of Vincente Alvarez with the Philippine Republic?

I've moved Arthur MacArthur Jr. down in the infobox list of U.S. commanders to better reflect his role during the period of this war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 * The Philippine-American War is considered to be a wider conflict that encompasses Aguinaldo's rebellion, the post-war insurgency, and Moro Rebellion, according to a number of modern consenses by historians, namely Daniel Immerwahr, Clayton D. Laurie, and Filipino historian Samuel K. Tan. This is reflected on the Moro Rebellion page which states that the rebellion was part of the wider war. Unless you find a source that explicitly states that the post-1902 conflicts were not a part of the war, said conflicts should remain as listed in the infobox. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:44FB:538D:3F6D:2AA8 (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 * OK. Here's one:

 * However, it is not the mission of Wikipedia to develop a POV position on issues and selectively cite sources in support of that POV position. One of the foundational policies in WP is the policy on Neutral Point of View; please read at least the first paragraph of the section of that policy headed Due and undue weight (shortcut: WP:DUE). Do reliable sources with differing viewpoints on this exist? Yes, they do. Does this difference in viewpoints have sufficient topical weight for elaboration in this article? Probably. Is the issue currently elaborated sufficiently? I think so -- you clearly disagree.

(insert) I garbled final sentence above with a spurious set of square brackets and a pipe char in what was intended to be a link to a URL and did not notice the garble until now. It was meant to read: I seem to be just feeding a troll here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a paragraph should be added to the article explicitly calling attention to the fact that this article covers the period of officially declared war between the United States following the cession by Spain and the nascent First Philippine Republic, that conflicts following the end of this declared conflict and after the dissolution of that proclaimed but unrecognized government should be included in the topic, and that these conflicts are covered in other Wikipedia articles. I don't thinnk such a paragraph is necessary, but differences between editors over such questions are resolved in Wikipedia according to consensus among interested editors. I'm calling here for other interested editors to weigh in on this. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This source does not appear to have been written by a historian and is definitely not from a book or journal so I wouldn't say it has strong grounding. Furthermore I feel like my last post in this subject was worded a bit poorly; this page covers the wider conflict in the Philippines which includes the post-war insurgencies in detail, so the infobox should reflect that as it has done so since 2009 as you stated. 2600:4040:9E16:3200:9D8A:79BD:FFA3:189 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't follow all of that. However, the MOS:LEADSENTENCE begins: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.". The lead sentenxce of this article currently reads: "The Philippine–American War, known alternatively as the Philippine Insurrection, Filipino–American War, or Tagalog Insurgency, was fought between the First Philippine Republic and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 2, 1902." Taking those quotes roughly at face value, the article shouldn't focus on events following 1902. I seem to be just [|feeding a troll] here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ..."this page covers the wider conflict in the Philippines..." This article describes the "Philippine-American War", a historical episode with particular start and end dates. Any information related to events outside those dates do not belong in the info box. Info box treatment of events describing a "wider conflict" belong in another article under another label. Chino-Catane (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "...a number of modern consenses by historians..." A note in the lead section says that in 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use the expression "Philippine-American War" in place of "Philippine Insurrection". Absent a similar reclassification of Roosevelt's July 4, 1902 declaration, a neutrally written encyclopedic article on the "Philippine-American War" cannot consider any armed belligerence beyond that date to be part of that particular 'war'. No works written by authors you cite are invoked in the article to contest the official termination date of this 'war'. That is a necessary first step that your position must clear. Chino-Catane (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Any bits describing events beyond July 4, 1902 - the official termination date of the "Philippine-American War" - must be removed from the info box. Chino-Catane (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you speculate that you have been feeding a single individual? It would be unfortunate if this article is being prevented from evolving into a WP:GA by a single individual. Chino-Catane (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Assertions of German support for the Philippine side
There have lately been a number of edits to the article adding and removing content related to this subtopic and arguing in edit summaries about what sources provide acceptable support and what do not. That should be sorted out in discussion here -- not by edit war article revisions.

I haven't dug into this much myself and I'm limited to online sources, but I may see what I can find as time allows. A quick google today did turn up this book, described there as "Angel Velasco Shaw, Luis H. Francia NYU Press, 2002 - History - 468 pages". The section titled A CLASH OF INTERESTS: German and American Territorial Ambitions beginning on page 23 seems to have some topically relevant information that might be citeable in support of article assertions on this subtopic. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * From Template:Infobox military conflict documentation "combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – ... The practice of writing in a "Supported by" subheading is deprecated (see discussion)." Specific RfC is here. Now, if Germany did provide Philipines with actual material support, then that could be worth mentioning somewhere in article main text (not infobox), but such contentious claim would still need a better source than a newspaper article from 1899. Plenty of academic literature has been published about the conflict.--Staberinde (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Official end of the war
The lead section claims, "...the 'war' was officially declared ended by the US on July 1, 1902." This proposition is problematic. Where in the text of the "Philippine Organic Act" does it explicitly declare an end to hostilities? The passage in the U.S. Congress of a unilaterally drafted bill is not equivalent to an official proclamation of the end of armed conflict. A peace treaty between adversaries or a proclamation by the Commander-in-chief of the winning side would each constitute an "official declaration" that armed conflict has ended. The official end of this particular 'war' should either be April 16, 1902 as proclaimed by a President of the Philippines or July 4, 1902 as proclaimed by a President of the United States. Chino-Catane (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that you have revised this problematic text here. Your changes were an improvement. The text of the Philippine Organic Act (1902) can be seen here. See also this news article which quotes a presidential proclamation and a general order in connection with this and provides information and analysis related to all this. I see that there is also article content related to this that needs review in and the lead para of the Philippine Organic Act (1902) article. I'll not edit these for now to avoid bumping heads with you. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

President Roosevelt declared the war insurrection officially over on July 4, 1902. One hundred years later, President Macapagal-Arroyo presented herself as speaking on behalf of all Filipinos alive in 1902, proclaiming the 'war' officially ended on April 16, 1902. Non-Moro Filipino fighters continued fighting beyond April 16 and July 4. However, Roosevelt wanted to declare an official end to the war insurrection, so he did. There did not exist widely accepted non-Moro Filipino leaders who disagreed with that declaration. Therefore, July 4, 1902 must be accepted as the official termination date of the "Philippine-American War". Full consideration of armed conflicts between Filipinos and U.S. Armed Forces beyond July 4, 1902 belong in another article under another label. Chino-Catane (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

 * The end date of the war recognized by the Philippines (April 16) should be given precedent as the name of the article (Philippine-American War) is the Filipino name for the conflict, whereas "Philippine Insurrection" is the initial name given by the U.S., if the name of the article reflects the Filipino view then the end date for the "main" phase of the war should reflect the Filipino view as well.
 * Additionally, the post-1902 campaigns should not be omitted from the infobox since most contemporary writers bringing up said campaigns (Moro Rebellion, Sakay's rebellion, Pulahan conflicts, etc.) consider them to be a part of the war. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "...should be given precedent as the name of the article...is the Filipino name for the conflict..." This is an interesting position. I contend with the qualifying proposition that "the name of the article reflects the Filipino view". Can you cite WP:RS stating that this name is the "Filipino name" that reflects the "Filipino view" as opposed to a name and view shared by individuals regardless of nationality? Our goal should not be to favor one view at the expense of another but to arrive at a neutral point of view through discussion. Chino-Catane (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "...post-1902 campaigns should not be omitted from the infobox..." Any campaign assigned to this war listed in the info box, extending past the end date listed in the info box, requires modifying the end date of this war to reflect the end of the last campaign listed in the info box. For example, if we want to include Sakay's rebellion as the last 'campaign' in the "Philippine-American War", we must modify the end date of the "Philippine-American War" to match or extend beyond the end date of Sakay's rebellion. Alternatively, can you direct me to a war article rated WP:GA that includes campaigns in the info box extending past the end of the associated war? Chino-Catane (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The official position of the U.S. and Philippine governments is that the war between the U.S. and First Republic ended in 1902. Sakay's movement was not the same as Aguinaldo's Philippine Republic and is thus his rebellion is not considered a part of the "main" phase of the war, but rather one of many resistance groups that fought the U.S. in the later part of the war. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, how does your claim regarding a "later part of the war" reconcile with your assertion in revision 1231329917 that the war terminated on April 16, 1902? Chino-Catane (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not asserting that the war ended completely on April 16, 1902, I was indicating that the main part of the war, the war between the United States and First Philippine Republic, ended then. The primary consensus among modern historians is that the war did not end with the fall of the Philippine Republic in 1902 as the United States continued fighting other anti-American groups in the Philippines until 1913. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"...The primary consensus among modern historians is that the war did not end with the fall of the Philippine Republic in 1902..." In the Points of contention section you list five sources that supposedly assign "post-1902 campaigns" to the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War". The string "Philippine-American War" does not appear in any titles of the works you cite. This calls into question the primary subject of investigation those works concern themselves with. Can you cite particular page numbers in any of those works that declare the "Philippine-American War" ended at some point after July 4, 1902? Why has neither the U.S. Library of Congress nor an equivalent institution in the Republic of the Philippines incorporated this "primary consensus" in their archival records? Furthermore, 5 sources against 11 does not constitute "primary consensus". At best, there is no "academic consensus", and a neutral point of view requires defaulting to official government declarations that have been documented. Alternatively, please point me to a WP:GA war article that lists 'campaigns' in its info box that fall outside the end date stated in the info box. Chino-Catane (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that someone had changed the ending dates of the war in the article to April 16. I've changed them back to July 1, but that date is arguably wrong. I am aware that sources supporting the July 1 date exist. This source puts that clearly: "The war officially ended with the passage of the Philippine Organic Act on July 1, 1902, and President Roosevelt offered a pardon to anyone who engaged in the conflict on July 4." However, a bill passed by the U.S. Congress may or may not become law, depending on whether or not the president signs it. The details of that are a bit more complicated but, in this case, President Roosevelt did sign that bill into law. According to various sources I've seen online, that happened on July 2. but I haven't yet found a citeable source for that (this would probably survive RS nitpicking, but it is unclear). The Organic act itself does not clearly say that the war is ended. In fact, Section 3 seems to say that hostilities may be ongoing ("That the President of the United States, during such time as and whenever the sovereignty and authority of the United States encounter armed resistance in the Philippine Islands, until otherwise provided by Congress, shall continue ..."). Roosevelt's July 4 proclamation does say that ("the insurrection against the authority and sovereignty of the United States is now at an end, ..."). The April 16 date comes from an assertion by RP president GMA when establishing a holiday in his homme province honoring Miguel Malvar, who surrendered on that dfate ("At sa loob ng mahigit na isang taon, ang Batanguenong heneral ay magiting na nakipaglaban sa Mt. Makiling at mga bundok ng Batangas. Sa bandang huli, sa headquarters ni General Franklin J. Bell sa lipa noong April 16, 1902, nagtapos ang Filipino-American War."). It seems to me that the July 4 date is the best of these, but it is a fact that sources exist supporting all three. WP:DUE needs to be considered here. I propose that the July 4 date be used in the infobox and lead section, with a footnote explaining that both the starting and ending dates there are approximate and chosen for illustrative purposes, that some sources assert other specific starting and ending dates and referring readers to the article section about the ending date for details about that -- and that section should be edited to clearly explain snd cite sources supporting the April 16 date, the July 1, 2, and 4 dates, and any other significant candidate dates. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree with your proposal to set the info box date to July 4, 1902 with a footnote and explanatory section. The issue with the sources you cite for alternative end dates is that they are both blog posts. The first reference lists two sources, one is an encyclopedia entry concerning Aguinaldo and the other source is a serious work on the war itself. Linn's book does not say anything about the war officially ending with the passage of the Philippine Organic Act. The second source you cite asserts that "The U.S. government officially declared the war over on July 2" with no supporting evidence. Chino-Catane (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Re the two sources I linked just above, taken in order
 * I didn't mean this one to support anything -- I just included it to show where the assertion that the war ended on July 1 that I quoted came from. Other sources assert the same, using the July 1 date of congressional passage of the organic act bill as the ending date of the war. I think the assertion is incorrect, but some sources -- even generally reliable sources published by generally reliable publishers -- make that same claim and it should be considered for mention in the article per DUE.
 * this one includes this embedded scan of page 1 of S.2295, the Senate version of the Organic Act bill. It's apparently an early version with a handwritten date markup that caught my eye. Even ignoring RS concerns about the web publisher, I agree that it is not any use here.
 * You apparently have RS concerns about some other sources, but I'm not sure which sources cited in support of what assertions in what context. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have addressed the concerns. Thank you.  Chino-Catane (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Continuing... My thinking now is that July 4 is the correct US-perspective ending date to use. I nave noted above that the Organic Act (passed on July 1, probably signed into law on July 2) does not say that the war is at an end. Article 3 there effectively allows TR to continue to use presidential war powers as long as hostilities continue.

 * In this edit, I have added explicit content to the EotW article section saying that TR officially proclaimed that the war was at an end on July 4.

 * I'm pausing to allow discussion here but, absent RS-supported info to the contrary, I plan to change assertions that the war ended on July 1 or 2 to say July 4 instead, citing TR's proclamation. Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to edit the article his morning to (1) standardize it on July 4 as the ending date and (2) explain that this article presents information about the conflict between the US and a rebellion mostly on Luzon and the Moro Rebellion article presents information about a conflict mostly on Mindanao between the US and another group, and noting that some sources, including some academics, consider the two conflicts to be distinct parts of a single conflict. However, I found that these changes had been made in the article body. I have reverted those changes and invited the editor who made them to join this discussion and work towards WP:Consensus here. I'll go forward with part (1) of that while waiting for that editor to join us here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead section
ARTICLE OPENER The first two sentences of this article currently read, "The Philippine–American War, known alternatively as the Philippine Insurrection, Filipino–American War, or Tagalog Insurgency, was fought between the First Philippine Republic and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 1, 1902. Tensions arose after the United States annexed the Philippines under the Treaty of Paris at the conclusion of the Spanish–American War rather than acknowledging the Philippines' declaration of independence." The precise date for the complete dismantling of fighting capabilities of First Philippine Republic Armed Forces, I contend, is now an unrecoverable data point. I propose replacing these first two sentences with: The Philippine–American War, known alternatively as the Philippine Insurrection, Filipino–American War, or Tagalog Insurgency, emerged following the conclusion of the Spanish–American War in December 1898 when the United States annexed the Philippine Islands under the Treaty of Paris. Philippine nationalists constituted the First Philippine Republic in January 1899, seven months after signing the Philippine Declaration of Independence. The United States refused to recognize both events, and tensions escalated until fighting commenced on February 4, 1899 in the Battle of Manila. Are there any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

... @Wtmitchell Your modification of dates from "July x" to "July 4" improves the article. This is the date I support as marking the "official" end of the "Philippine-American War". However, the article's opening sentence, "The Philippine–American War ... was fought between the First Philippine Republic and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 4, 1902" is untenable. Macapagal-Arroyo declared the war and thus the "First Philippine Republic" ended with Malvar's surrender on April 16. I believe Aguinaldo would have disagreed with her and claimed that the war and thus the "First Philippine Republic" ended with his capture on March 23, 1901. Even supposing that leadership of the "First Philippine Republic" "officially" passed to Malvar upon Aguinaldo's capture, we cannot say with precise certainty the exact day upon which the remnants of the Philippine Revolutionary Army ceased to exist. The sources suggest that even prior to April 16, 1902, all Malvar's men had already abandoned him. This implies that actual fighting between the "First Philippine Republic" and the United States ended even before April 16. There exists an inherent problem claiming that the "First Philippine Republic" "fought" the United States up to some exact date. We can avoid this problem by simply not making the "was fought" claim at all and instead opening the article with something like what I suggested above. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest changing, "refused to recognize both events" to read, "did not recognize either event as legitimate". Also, while I agree that the precise date for the complete dismantling of fighting capabilities of First Philippine Republic Armed Forces, is now an unrecoverable data point, it is not WP's job to determine that and it flouts some WP policies, WP:DUE in particular, to try doing so. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "did not recognize either event as legitimate" accepted.
 * "...it flouts some WP policies..." : Even supposing your assertion is true, the proposition, "...was fought between the FPR and the US ... until July 4, 1902" is objectively false. My proposal is to simply not make the claim at all. Chino-Catane (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree about "was fought". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A more delicate change would also be problematic. Swapping "was an armed conflict" in place of "was fought" would also lead to a false claim because the First Philippine Republic had been completely dismantled and disarmed before July 4, 1902. Substituting "was a conflict" would not work either because the First Philippine Republic declared itself in January 1899. A "conflict" existed at the moment it was officially promulgated, before February 4, 1899. Chino-Catane (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

- moved from article: "However, some Philippine groups—led by veterans of the Katipunan, a Philippine revolutionary society that had launched the revolution against Spain—continued to fight for several more years." The claim "some Philippine groups - led by veterans..." requires production of at least 3 such veterans. Currently, there is only one. Chino-Catane (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC) - DETAILS TO BE REINSERTED IN ARTICLE BODY On June 2, after U.S. denial of an armistice request, the Philippine Council of Government issued a proclamation urging its people to continue fighting.

Aftermath section
staging content from lead section to be placed probably in Aftermath section: Ethnic Tagalogs in Luzon led by Macario Sakay operated from mountains in Rizal until surrendering on July 14, 1906. Groups including the Muslim Moro peoples of the southern Philippines and quasi-Catholic Pulahan religious movements continued hostilities in remote areas. The resistance in the Moro-dominated provinces in the south, called the Moro Rebellion by the Americans, ended with Moro defeat at the Battle of Bud Bagsak on June 15, 1913. Chino-Catane (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How many ethnic Tagalogs would that be? A significant percent of the total number of ethnic Tagalogs? If not, does this have sufficient weight to be pointed up in relation to the article topic? Also, you'll need to cite supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Points of contention in revision 1231329917
A sequence of edits were made at 1231303283, 1231304008 and 1231304161. @user:141.155.35.58, with regards to your edit 1231303283, none of the changes you made reverted instances of vandalism. We can discuss each point of contention here. Chino-Catane (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Your edits constituted a major change to this article that was not initially discussed beforehand. Please get editor consensus before making such drastic changes to the article. For example, omitting the post-1902 campaigns from the infobox is a major change to the article that is undoing a long-held consensus that definitely needs to be discussed before removing. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your revision 1231329917 asserts in the info box that this war ended April 16, 1902. Why is it appropriate to label campaigns as part of the "Philippine-American War" if they extend beyond the war's end date of April 16, 1902? Shouldn't such campaigns be labeled as being parts of different 'wars', and instead appear in the info boxes of different articles? Chino-Catane (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The post-1902 campaigns, such as the Moro Rebellion, Sakay's rebellion, the various Pulahan skirmishes, etc. are usually considered by historians to be part of the Philippine-American War and not their own separate wars, thus it is recommended to follow the academic consensus. Furthermore the campaign box of the Philippine-American war lists battles that took place after 1902, so it is clear that the consensus as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is that the war in the Philippines did not completely end until 1913, despite the Philippine Republic ending in 1902. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "...recommended to follow the academic consensus..."  When I scholar.google the string "Philippine American War" my search returns:
 * [BOOK] Response to Imperialism: The United States and the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 ; RE Welch Jr - 2016
 * Why the United States Won the Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 ; GA May - Pacific Historical Review, 1983 - JSTOR
 * [BOOK] A war of frontier and empire: The Philippine-American war, 1899-1902 ; D Silbey - 2008
 * [BOOK] The Philippine War, 1899-1902 ; BMA Linn - 2000
 * The Philippine-American War (1899-1902) : Compassion or Conquest?; E Holm - 2014
 * Perspectives on peace during the Philippine—American war of 1899–1902 ; MSI Diokno - South East Asia Research, 1997
 * “I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE PEOPLE”: AFRICAN AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN THE PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN WAR, 1899–1902 ; TD Russell - The Journal of African American History, 2014
 * The role of geography in counterinsurgency warfare: The Philippine American War, 1899–1902 ; WN Holden - GeoJournal, 2020 - Springer
 * The Philippine War, 1899–1902 ; RD Cunningham - 2002 - JSTOR
 * The Spanish-American and Philippine wars, 1898-1902 ; GA Cosmas - A companion to American Military History, 2010
 * A War of Frontier and Empire: The Philippine-American War, 1899-1902 ; M Polner - Fellowship, 2007
 * What "academic consensus" regarding "post-1902" campaigns are you referring to? Chino-Catane (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources on the contrary arguing that the war lasted until 1913
 * The Filipino-American War, 1899-1913; Samuel K. Tan, 2003
 * Forgotten Under a Tropical Sun: War stories by American Veterans in the Philippines, 1899-1913; Joseph P. McCallus, 2017
 * The Philippine Insurrection (1899-1913) and the word "Boondocks" | War and Etymology; Joseph Hall-Patton, 2016
 * How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States (2019) by Daniel Immerwahr and The United States of War: A Global History of America's Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State (2020) by David Vine both state the Philippine-American War as lasting from 1899 to 1913.
 * Furthermore, the article itself states that writers who have studied the post-1902 conflicts consider them to be a part of the war. There have also been no significant scholarly arguments made that said conflicts are distinctly not part of the Philippine-American War. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States" and "The United States of War: A Global History of America's Endless Conflicts" : The titles of these publications alone betray editorial bias. Every sentence in a Wikipedia article should be a hard fact, devoid of passion and prejudice, supported by reliable sources. How many pages do either of these two sources dedicate to rigorous analysis of the "Philippine-American War"? Divide that number by the total number of pages. If the resulting ratio is small, why should views promoted by these sources be afforded undue weight relative to sources that treat the "Philippine-American War" as their primary topics of investigation? If "both state the Philippine-American War as lasting from 1899 to 1913", please provide block quotes with page numbers. Chino-Catane (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @141.155.35.58 "article itself states that writers who have studied the post-1902 conflicts consider them to be a part of the war" The article states nothing of the sort. Please point me to that statement.
 * "no significant scholarly arguments made that said conflicts are distinctly not part of the Philippine-American War" The majority of WP:RS that treat the "Philippine-American War" as their primary subject of investigation adhere to the view that "post-1902 campaigns" are distinctly not part of the "Philippine-American War". They do not investigate "post-1902 campaigns" in any meaningful way. It is the responsibility of the minority view to justify its existence.
 * Your revision 1231329917 asserts that "...was fought between the First Philippine Republic and the United States from February 4, 1899, until July 1, 1902." July 1, 1902 extends beyond the end date of the war asserted in the info box of April 16, 1902. How do you reconcile this? Chino-Catane (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The section "Post-1902 conflicts" states: 141.155.35.58 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The section "Post-1902 conflicts" states of said conflicts:
 * "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." Citing The Philippines: A Past Revisited (1975) by Renato Constantino
 * The change of the end date to July 1 was also not mine and was done by another editor.
 * @Chino-Catane "The majority of WP:RS that treat the "Philippine-American War" as their primary subject of investigation adhere to the view that "post-1902 campaigns" are distinctly not part of the "Philippine-American War".
 * So, do these sources even mention the post-1902 campaigns and state that they are explicitly not a part of the Philippine-American War? Do you have of any forces explaining that the conflicts after 1902 - the Moro Rebellion, Sakay's rebellion, the Visayan conflicts - are not part of the war that started in 1899 and are, in fact, their own separate wars? The writers who do bring up the post-1902 conflicts primarily argue that they were part of the war. It's an obviously murky argument considering it's not discussed that much in historical discourse. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @141.155.35.58  "...state that they are explicitly not a part of the Philippine-American War?"
 * They don't need to explicitly state that "post-1902 campaigns" are not part of the "Philippine-American War". The corpus of literature with titles containing the string "Philippine-American War" overwhelmingly define this episode as having occurred between 1899-1902, and do not contain within them, major investigations of "post-1902 campaigns." A novel relabeling of historical episodes proposed by a relatively small body of literature, none of which contain the string "Philippine-American War" in their titles, requires explicit acceptance from the majority of authors who terminated their treatments of the "Philippine-American War" at 1902. Please provide a block quote with page numbers from one of your sources that summarizes the most compelling reason to accept that the military episode labeled "Philippine-American War" actually extended beyond July 4, 1902.
 * "Do you have of any forces explaining that the conflicts after 1902 are not part of the war that started in 1899 and are, in fact, their own separate wars?"
 * The complete absence of any literature of any kind, explicitly affirming war in the Philippines past July 4, 1902, from a United States Military Institute or War College, demonstrates that the United States of America was not engaged in a war against the Philippines beyond July 4, 1902. The complete absence of a date-reclassification of archival records by the U.S. Library of Congress or an equivalent institution in the Republic of the Philippines, demonstrates that the United States of America was not engaged in a war against the Philippines beyond July 4, 1902. Your position makes a claim that modifies the dates of a historical episode, and since nobody even knows about the claim, you make the further unacknowledged claim that it is now the "primary consensus". You should consider lobbying U.S. Congress or the Congress of the Philippines to modify archival records.
 * "The writers who do bring up the post-1902 conflicts primarily argue that they were part of the war."
 * Let's get into the details of the sources you claim demonstrably show that the "Philippine-American War" extended beyond July 4, 1902. How many U.S. citizens of the American Armed Forces were killed or injured in combat against Philippine Armed Forces personnel after July 4, 1902? Chino-Catane (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (inserted inline) Maybe I framed my argument incorrectly. In fact the infobox does state that what is "traditionally" considered the Philippine-American War ended in 1902. However, because some writers have argued that the war actually extended beyond that year, as late as 1913, I believe that the dates of the Moro Rebellion (the most prominent and longest of the post-1902 conflicts) be left in the infobox to ease confusions from people who might have initially read from some sources that the war lasted all the way to 1913. To put it another way, it can be argued that the war ended de jure in 1902, but arguably continued de facto after that. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @141.155.35.58 "I believe that the dates of the Moro Rebellion...be left in the infobox to ease confusions..."
 * You have yet to demonstrate with blockquotes and page numbers, that even a single historian believes what you claim is the "primary consensus" for the end of the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War".
 * "...some writers have argued that the war actually extended beyond that year..."
 * Can you please provide the blockquote(s) with page number(s) that illustrate the most compelling argument, in your view, why the world should accept a "de facto" end date for the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" that is later than the "de jure" end date of July 4, 1902? Chino-Catane (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @141.155.35.58 "I believe that the dates of the Moro Rebellion...be left in the infobox to ease confusions..."
 * You have yet to demonstrate with blockquotes and page numbers, that even a single historian believes what you claim is the "primary consensus" for the end of the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War".
 * "...some writers have argued that the war actually extended beyond that year..."
 * Can you please provide the blockquote(s) with page number(s) that illustrate the most compelling argument, in your view, why the world should accept a "de facto" end date for the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" that is later than the "de jure" end date of July 4, 1902? Chino-Catane (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I hope you guys don't mind a comment here from an outsider editor. I haven't been following this exchange comment-by-comment and I'm not an academic, but the 1902ish date (that may need adjustment to 1904), described as "de jure" above, seems most reasonable to me to use as the basis of this article. In 1904, the U.S. president proclaimed officially that the general hostilities had ended after the opposition had essentially (with a few exceptions) abandoned the field of battle. The Moro rebellion is a separate conflict which overlaps that 1904 date but has little or nothing to do with the conflict in the North, and that is made clear in the U.S. proclamation. The 1899-1902 or 4 conflict developed mostly on Luzon between the U.S. and Philippine revolutionaries following the Battle of Manila (1899). Some historians lump the two conflicts, or parts of them, together and some do not -- WP:DUE is supposed to come into play there. It is not WP's aim to decide which view is right -- just to present both views in a WP:NPOV manner. I don't think that it is a violation of NPOV to present the mostly Luzon conflict here and the mostly Mindanao conflict separately while acknowledging in both presentations that some scholars feel that the two should be presented together. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like the "de jure" end date should be at 1902 considering that is when most historians agree the war between the U.S. and the Philippine Republic ended, I have yet to find any sources that state the war ended in 1904. Furthermore the article states that hostilities on Luzon did not end until 1906 when Sakay and his rebels were captured. I still believe that the dates for both the "main" Philippine-American War (1899-1902) and the Moro Rebellion (1899-1913) should remain in the infobox as it has been since 2009, as the article itself states that some writers argue that the Moro Rebellion (and other post-1902 conflicts) are part of the war. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @WtMitchell @141.155.35.58 Thanks for the input. I agree the Moro Rebellion should be mentioned briefly in the article. The point of contention is whether or not the Moro Rebellion should appear in the info box. I have yet to locate a war article rated WP:GA or WP:FA that includes 'campaigns' within its info box extending beyond the war end-date specified in said info box. Moro Rebellion inclusion within the info box represents a subjective category (see WP:DISINFOBOX). A vanishingly small number of Filipino historians and "anti-imperialist" historians may subjectively opine that the "Philippine-American War" extended beyond July 4, 1902 to encompass the entirety of the Moro Rebellion. However, both the "de jure" and "de facto" end date for the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" was no later than July 4, 1902 as proclaimed by Presidents Roosevelt and Macapagal-Arroyo. Their proclamations are affirmed by the vast majority of academic literature, all the contemporaneous news articles, and the U.S. Library of Congress with no objection by an equivalent government institution within the Republic of the Philippines.
 * "...some writers argue that the Moro Rebellion (and other post-1902 conflicts) are part of the war."
 * Again, please provide block quotes and page numbers illustrating the most compelling reason why the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War" extended beyond the "de jure" end date of July 4, 1902. Let's have a substantive discussion on whether or not this minority view is being given undue weight as described in WP:DUE. A single sentence claiming that "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war" with a single citation to a single author, does not provide sufficient justification to warrant inclusion of the Moro Rebellion in the info box. Chino-Catane (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even though the number of writers who argue the Moro Rebellion and other post-1902 conflicts in the Philippines is "vanishingly small", as you state, that doesn't make their arguments any less valid and not worth mentioning in the infobox. I am still of the opinion that the dates for the Philippine-American War (between the U.S. and Philippine Republic) and the Moro Rebellion should both be presented in the infobox, only because some writers have stated the latter conflict to be a part of the former, even if it's a "minority" view. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @141.155.35.58 Per revision 1232051390 the claim, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war", fails verification. Discussion of an extended "Philippine-American War" beyond July 4, 1902 appears nowhere within the bounds of the cited pages.
 * "...doesn't make their arguments any less valid..."
 * There does not exist a verified citation in this entire article showing that any historians whatsoever have argued or currently argue that "these unofficial extensions" should be considered parts of the historical episode labeled "Philippine-American War". If verified citations do exist, please provide block quotes and page numbers to correct the misunderstanding so that the sentence may remain in the article.
 * "...that doesn't make their arguments ... not worth mentioning in the infobox..."
 * H:IB states, "Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article." Unless the above mentioned claim is properly verified and expanded upon, the claim itself warrants removal from the article, which in turn warrants removal of the Moro Rebellion from the info box.
 * "...some writers have stated the latter conflict to be a part of the former..."
 * Again, please provide block quotes and page numbers from WP:RS that state this. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "...some writers have stated the latter conflict to be a part of the former..."
 * Again, please provide block quotes and page numbers from WP:RS that state this. Chino-Catane (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Joseph Hall-Patton moves Philippine-American War end-date to 1913 in YouTube video
Revision 1232408057 is an improvement, as it provides multiple citations to qualify the assertion that "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war". Per original research span guidance, this discussion is being started to address the use of Joseph Hall-Patton's YouTube video to support the aforementioned assertion. While Mr. Hall-Patton has earned the title of historian, he is not a subject-matter expert on the Philippine-American War. His self-published YouTube video concerning the subject does not establish him as a "subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." WP:SPS sets this as the condition under which self-published expert sources may be considered reliable. Unless it can be demonstrated that Mr. Hall-Patton's work on the Philippine-American War has been published by reliable, independent publications, the citation in question warrants removal. Chino-Catane (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the Vine and Immerwahr citations in the above mentioned revision require page number specifications for verification.

 * I do not know how to cite specific page numbers of sources. If you know how to here are the links to the books I cited:
 * How to Hide an Empire, A Greater History of the United States: epub includes a statement at end of Philippine-American War chapter, "Shouting the Battle Cry of Freedom", that the war overall lasted until 1913.
 * The United States of War states, on page 122, argues that the "Philippines independence movement" lasted "formally" until 1902, but then states that, "fighting continued sporadically until 1913". There is also a map in this chapter that denotes the Philippine-American War as lasting until that year.
 * Also I am curious to hear about what an "expert" on this particular subject might entail. Perhaps a writer on U.S. military history or American foreign policy? 141.155.35.58 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the page numbers. Vine writes, "'Under U.S. occupation and a war to crush the Philippines independence movement that formally lasted until 1902, hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians died from direct violence in war, disease, and starvation. Tens of thousands of Filipino combatants and more than 4,200 U.S. soldiers died. Fighting continued sporadically until 1913, likely taking thousands more lives. Most deaths occurred in the Muslim-majority southern islands of Mindanao.'"
 * This is not equivalent to stating, "The Philippine-American War lasted until 1913".
 * Thus far, a single verified citation confirms that one historian maintains the view that the "Philippine War" lasted until 1913. This is expressed in a book titled How to Hide an Empire, A History of the Greater United States. The author dedicates 21 pages of prose out of 435 to the "Philippine War". that's less than 5% of the book. Clearly, the "Philippine War" is not the author's primary topic of investigation. He remarks in the notes at the end of the book, "There are many histories of the Philippine War, especially between 1899 and 1902."
 * WP:RSUW paraphrases Jimmy Wales as stating, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.."
 * WP:SPS addresses your last question. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." In this situation, it must be shown that Mr. Hall-Patton has produced work on the "Philippine-American War" that has been published by reliable, independent publications.
 * I propose 1 week is ample time to produce citations that justify inclusion within this article of the claim, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." After such time, if those citations are not produced, I propose moving this claim to the talk page pending further support and modifying the info box to reflect this removal. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I object to the dates of the Moro Rebellion being removed from the infobox primarily due to the fact that it has remained there since 2008 and was largely uncontested until now, and some writers, such as Daniel Immerwahr and Samuel K. Tan consider the Moro Rebellion as part of the war. It is stated in the body of the article that some writers consider events such as the Moro Rebellion as part of the Philippine-American War, which is also reflected on the Moro Rebellion's page. Furthermore, the campaign box lists battles of the war that happened after 1902 and are considered on their respective pages to be a part of the war (see Battle of Dolores River and Battle of the Malala River, for example). To remove all references to the Moro Rebellion and other post-1902 conflicts from the infobox would also require removing all references across Wikipedia to the Philippine-American War or events related to it occurring after 1902, which would be too much of a major overhaul and is unfeasible. 141.155.35.58 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your concerns. "...it has remained there since 2008 and was largely uncontested until now..." A review of the archives reveals that no one cared enough to check the claim, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." The veracity of this assertion is highly dubious and has yet to be established upon challenge. A single citation referencing a single historian who spends less than 5% of his book discussing the "Philippine War" does not warrant juxtaposing his lone view with the canonical view that the "Philippine-American War" ended in 1902 and that the "Moro Rebellion" was a partly coincident but separate conflict, as far as subject-matter experts are concerned.

"...some writers, such as Daniel Immerwahr and Samuel K. Tan..." Please provide block quote(s) and page number(s) expressing Tan's most compelling reason(s) why his labeling of the "Filipino-American War" should be juxtaposed with a canonical view in an encyclopedic article. Perhaps the view warrants its own ancillary article, but it does not warrant prominent display in this one. It may warrant brief mention in the Aftermath section if you can furnish page numbers. You still have not addressed the observation made above about WP:RSUW stating that viewpoints held by an extremely small minority do not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article).

"...It is stated in the body of the article that some writers..." The assertion is unsupported, and its weakness is clearly flagged in the article. Thus far, the descriptor Some does not apply, but the descriptor One does apply. If you can provide page numbers in Tan's work that survive verification, the descriptor Two would apply. Given the proposed evidence offered thus far, the assertion is objectively false.

"...require removing all references across Wikipedia to the Philippine-American War..." This is a hyperbolic claim, and I doubt it is true. Even supposing it is true, all instances of false claims must eventually be corrected.

"...which would be too much of a major overhaul and is unfeasible.." The operation you describe as "unfeasible" is a trivial task.

Please address my criticisms as I have always addressed each and every one of your claims. You continue to make the assertion that "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war." I await the evidence. If you can establish the veracity of this claim, then we can move on to discussing WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE weight. It should not take more than a week to support this claim with verified sources if it is in fact true. Chino-Catane (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (comment from the sidelines) I'm presently traveling and major involvement in a WP discussion is difficult for me. However, as this seems to be developing in that direction, I'm going to comment at this point.

 * The lead sentence of an article should make it clear what the topic of this article is. MOS:FIRST supports this. This is of major importance since there are different viewpoints on this. This article covers the conflict with the US and Aguinaldo's revolutionaries in the North being belligerents. Roughly at the conclusion of that conflict, the Moro Rebellion developed in the South with US and a different group of revolutionaries having little or no connection to Aguinaldo's group as belligerents. WP covers these two conflicts in two separate articles. The opening paras of both of those articles should make this clear and a section or a footnote in both articles should explain why this is so, without introducing much detail from the other article. I think that this implies that details such as a list battles from that other conflict do not belong in the infobox of an article about this conflict. I think that edits to action this should be made now, out of consideration for users encountering the articles as they exist now. If discussion brings about a consensus to change this, it can be changed then

 * I believe that it is clear that high levels of the US govt were focused on the conflict described in this article in early July 1902, though they were aware that the other conflict existed and would not conclude with the conclusion of this conflict. TR's proclamation makes that clear by saying clearly that fighting continues "in the country inhabited by the Moro tribes" and that it does not apply there. Section three of the Organic Act, as I read it, allows US presidential war powers to continue to be used in dealing with challenges to US sovereignty other than the conflict his proclamation declared ended -- even though the US military government in the Philippines was being terminated. While I am traveling, I can't get into it much deeper than that but I thought that I ought to say that much at this point. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the previous opening sentence structure is preferred, I propose the following: "The Philippine-American War ... was an armed conflict between the First Philippine Republic and the United States lasting from 1899 to 1902." This avoids the twin problems of assigning a precise end-date to the cessation of "fighting" and choosing between two officially recognized end-dates.
 * "...details such as a list battles from that other conflict do not belong in the infobox of an article about this conflict. I think that edits to action this should be made now, out of consideration for users encountering the articles as they exist now. If discussion brings about a consensus to change this, it can be changed then" I agree. Chino-Catane (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't support removing any references to the Moro Rebellion from the article, if a broader consensus emerges that the conflict is definitively not a part of the war discussed by this article, perhaps a disclaimer could be added to the top of the article that states something along the lines of, "This article is about the war between the United States and the First Philippine Republic fought from 1899 to 1902, for the longer conflict between the U.S. and Moro People, see Moro Rebellion". Would you support this? 141.155.35.58 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections to a carefully considered advertisement of the Moro Rebellion at the top of this article.
 * "...if a broader consensus emerges that the conflict is definitively not a part of the war..."
 * The claim, "Some historians consider these unofficial extensions to be part of the war" has been challenged and must survive scrutiny. An indefensible proposition cannot remain in the article. If evidence is not produced to support the claim, it should be removed. Consequences of that removal would naturally follow. Chino-Catane (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Background section
Aguinaldo's exile and return subsection has grown to occupy the third largest subsection in the entire article at 756 words. In a previous version it was expressed in a crisp 383 words. Why do contested details of the political intrigues of a single individual warrant much more attention relative to all other elements of this 'war'? Was the "Philippine-American War" primarily about Aguinaldo? I propose trimming this subsection to no more than 500 words. Detailed presentations of Aguinaldo's political exploits can be placed in the advertised Main article: Hong Kong Junta. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Origins of the conflict section
This section is 2,833 words long while the "War" section is only 2,298 words long. This is completely out of proportion. I propose trimming this section and expanding the "War" section. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? Chino-Catane (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Where should the detail be moved? CMD (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If any particular bit of detail warrants inclusion in a Wikipedia article at all, it can be moved to a "Main article" or other related article, and then advertised. Chino-Catane (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I raise the question as there is not a main article for many of the relevant subsections, unlike the section you raise above. CMD (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the concerns. Trimmings warranting inclusion in a Wikipedia article can go in Battle of Manila (1898), Spanish–American War and Benevolent assimilation. Chino-Catane (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Philippine–American War


text:
Gomorrah

Gomorrah or Gomorra may refer to:
 * Sodom and Gomorrah, Biblical cities
 * Gomorrah (book), a 2006 non-fiction investigative book by Roberto Saviano
 * Gomorrah (film), based on the book
 * Gomorrah (TV series), based on the book
 * Operation Gomorrah, the Bombing of Hamburg in World War II in July 1943
 * Liber Gomorrhianus or Book of Gomorrah, a book written by Peter Damian
 * Gomorra (EP), a 1994 EP by Wumpscut
 * Gomorrah, a fictional casino within the video game Fallout: New Vegas

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Gomorrah


text:
Potassium ferricyanide

Potassium ferricyanide is the chemical compound with the formula K3[Fe(CN)6]. This bright red salt contains the octahedrally coordinated [Fe(CN)6]3− ion. It is soluble in water and its solution shows some green-yellow fluorescence. It was discovered in 1822 by Leopold Gmelin.

Preparation
Potassium ferricyanide is manufactured by passing chlorine through a solution of potassium ferrocyanide. Potassium ferricyanide separates from the solution:
 * 2 K4[Fe(CN)6] + Cl2 → 2 K3[Fe(CN)6] + 2 KCl

Structure
Like other metal cyanides, solid potassium ferricyanide has a complicated polymeric structure. The polymer consists of octahedral [Fe(CN)6]3− centers crosslinked with K+ ions that are bound to the CN ligands. The K+---NCFe linkages break when the solid is dissolved in water.

Applications
The compound is also used to harden iron and steel, in electroplating, dyeing wool, as a laboratory reagent, and as a mild oxidizing agent in organic chemistry.

Blueprint, cyanotype, toner
The compound has widespread use in blueprint drawing and in photography (Cyanotype process). Several photographic print toning processes involve the use of potassium ferricyanide.It is often used as a mild bleach in a concentration of 10g/L to reduce film or print density.

Bleaching
Potassium ferricyanide was used as an oxidizing agent to remove silver from color negatives and positives during processing, a process called bleaching. Because potassium ferricyanide bleaches are environmentally unfriendly, short-lived, and capable of releasing hydrogen cyanide gas if mixed with high concentrations and volumes of acid, bleaches using ferric EDTA have been used in color processing since the 1972 introduction of the Kodak C-41 process. In color lithography, potassium ferricyanide is used to reduce the size of color dots without reducing their number, as a kind of manual color correction called dot etching.

Farmer's reducer
Ferricyanide is also used in black-and-white photography with sodium thiosulfate (hypo) to reduce the density of a negative or gelatin silver print where the mixture is known as Farmer's reducer; this can help offset problems from overexposure of the negative, or brighten the highlights in the print.

Reagent in organic synthesis
Potassium ferricyanide is a used as an oxidant in organic chemistry. It is an oxidant for catalyst regeneration in Sharpless dihydroxylations.

Sensors and indicators
Potassium ferricyanide is also one of two compounds present in ferroxyl indicator solution (along with phenolphthalein) that turns blue (Prussian blue) in the presence of Fe2+ ions, and which can therefore be used to detect metal oxidation that will lead to rust. It is possible to calculate the number of moles of Fe2+ ions by using a colorimeter, because of the very intense color of Prussian blue.

In physiology experiments potassium ferricyanide provides a means increasing a solution's redox potential (E°' ~ 436 mV at pH 7). As such, it can oxidize reduced cytochrome c (E°' ~ 247 mV at pH 7) in isolated mitochondria. Sodium dithionite is usually used as a reducing chemical in such experiments (E°' ~ −420 mV at pH 7).

Potassium ferricyanide is used to determine the ferric reducing power potential of a sample (extract, chemical compound, etc.). Such a measurement is used to determine of the antioxidant property of a sample.

Potassium ferricyanide is a component of amperometric biosensors as an electron transfer agent replacing an enzyme's natural electron transfer agent such as oxygen as with the enzyme glucose oxidase. It is an ingredient in commercially available blood glucose meters for use by diabetics.

Other
Potassium ferricyanide is combined with potassium hydroxide (or sodium hydroxide as a substitute) and water to formulate Murakami's etchant. This etchant is used by metallographers to provide contrast between binder and carbide phases in cemented carbides.

Prussian blue
Prussian blue, the deep blue pigment in blue printing, is generated by the reaction of K3[Fe(CN)6] with ferrous (Fe2+) ions as well as K4[Fe(CN)6] with ferric salts.

In histology, potassium ferricyanide is used to detect ferrous iron in biological tissue. Potassium ferricyanide reacts with ferrous iron in acidic solution to produce the insoluble blue pigment, commonly referred to as Turnbull's blue or Prussian blue. To detect ferric (Fe3+) iron, potassium ferrocyanide is used instead in the Perls' Prussian blue staining method. The material formed in the Turnbull's blue reaction and the compound formed in the Prussian blue reaction are the same.

Safety
Potassium ferricyanide has low toxicity, its main hazard being that it is a mild irritant to the eyes and skin. However, under very strongly acidic conditions, highly toxic hydrogen cyanide gas is evolved, according to the equation:

 * 6 H+ + [Fe(CN)6]3− → 6 HCN + Fe3+

title: Potassium ferricyanide


text:
Talk:Jesus and Sun Myung Moon

Why is this a separate article instead of being part of the Unification Church article? Wesley

 * I agree - I can't imagine paging through a paper encyclopedia and seeing an entry on this subject. This should just be lumped into Unification Church or some other meta page on UC doctrine.

 * Also, no offense meant towards Ed (this time), I wonder if Ed shouldn't take a "hands off" stance on UC entries (other than to correct factual errors). He isn't an objective observer, and I question his ability to keep NPOV even if he consciously tries.

title: Talk:Jesus and Sun Myung Moon


text:
GENA

General Event Notification Architecture.

GENA Base defines an HTTP notification architecture that transmits notifications between HTTP resources. An HTTP resource could be any object which might need to send or receive a notification, for example a distribution list, buddy list, print job, etc. It was defined in Internet Draft draft-cohen-gena-p-base-01.txt (now expired).

GENA Base Client to Arbiter provides for the ability to send and receive notifications using HTTP over TCP/IP and administratively scoped unreliable multicast UDP. Provisions are made for the use of intermediary arbiters, called subscription arbiters, which handle routing notifications to their intended destination.

History
During July 13–14, 1998 the University of California Irvine convened WISEN: the Workshop on Internet-Scale Event Notification. This event brought together a number of experts of various fields and included a presentation on GENA by Josh Cohen of Microsoft. Delegates showcased their event notification architectures and haggled over requirements of the same. Josh's final slide includes the bullet points "GENA is being implemented by Microsoft Products" and "Our wish is to collaborate to agree on a standard. GENA or other, we will comply."

Interest in event notification appears to have waned after 1998 as participants were unable to come to common definitions of what is required for the definition of notification services and protocols. GENA was briefly considered for use in the Internet Printing Protocol but found a niche as part of the Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) architecture.

Internet Drafts
GENA Base
 * July 9, 1998

Client to Arbiter
 * June 24, 1999
 * September 6, 2000

title: GENA


text:
Talk:List of municipalities in California

old comments
What are the criteria for being on this list? We already have all incorporated places listed on each county page. -- Zoe

It's Angel's Camp, not Angels Camp. -- Zoe

Also, San Pedro is part of Los Angeles, it isn't a city on its own. And there is no such city as Yosemite. --

There is no apostrophe in Angels Camp -- see their web site at []. Yosemite was listed as a city in my atlas and at [], but after some checking, it seems to have been corrected in a later edition of the atlas. And you're right that San Pedro was annexed by Los Angeles in 1907. Any more mistakes? GUllman

Why have you listed both "South San Francisco" and "S. San Francisco"?? Moncrief, 10 Mar 2004

Revamped and New Pages
The page is revamped because it was intended for incorporated cities only like other state's cities list, however, the previous list has been moved to List of cities, places, and neighborhoods in California to best fit the content of the article. --Moreau36; 0326 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Bridgeport, Hydesville, San Andreas, and San Pedro are still on this list, but they are not incorporated cities. There are 478 incorporated cities in California.  I intend to verify these four unincorporated places are represented in the list of places page, and then delete them from here.
 * --GraemeMcRae 04:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I added the names of the counties and dates of incorporation for each city
 * --GraemeMcRae 06:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Cities and towns?
did a recent edit to this page marking some communities as "town". I thought that in California there were no distinctions between sizes and types of cities like there are in many Northeastern US states. Blank Verse 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I did the editing. There is indeed no essential distinction between incorporated cities and incorporated towns. It's just those "towns" call themselves such and reflect this in their names as "Town of XYZ" instead of "City of XYZ".
 * --WeiGreatness 3:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Since there is no real distinction between the two, then the information is basically useless and IMHO does not belong in the Wikipedia. It would make more sense to show which cities are general law cities and which are charter cities according to State of California law (and use a separate column instead of the asterisk). Blank Verse 15:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

COMMON SENSE tells us the difference between a city and a town! The Ancient Greeks knew this difference, and so do we -- despite the fact that some state legislatures have been dim enough to ignore the difference. The difference between a city and a town lies in population, and one very common demarkation is that a city MUST have a population of at least 60,000 people (now). There is a fuzzier demarkation at the bottom between a village and a town. These divisions are built into our language, and in fact into all Western languages, and probably Eastern ones, too. In English and German, we have these pairs, in increasing order of size: village = Dorf; town = Stadt; city = City (an urban area with a population of more than 100,000 people). Furthermore, "Burg" was the old German word for a fortified town, which was an important thing in medieval times. Nowadays, "Stadt" also refers to "downtown" in a large city.

Most Americans and British cannot tell the difference between "berg" and "burg", but the difference is distinct, and the sound is really distinct. Hence the endings of Heidelberg and Hamburg really do sound different.

Likewise, I can really tell the difference between San Francisco and San Fernando just by looking at them. San Fernando and San Sebastian are just specks on the map compared with San Francisco and San Jose'98.67.97.225 (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 * The word "city" was foolishly used in place names a long time ago -- for places that are NOT cities, and they usually have never been. They simply never have been large enough. Just because some people were foolish a long time ago doesn't mean that we have to persist with it. These are not cities because they are too small:
 * Arkansas City, Brigham City, Culver City, Elizabeth City, Forest City, Idaho City (Colorado), Johnson City (Texas), Lake City (Florida or Tennessee), Michigan City, Oregon City, Phenix City, Polk City, Union City (several states)...
 * Vatican City isn't really a city, either.98.67.97.225 (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We should just accept that the definition of a "city" varies from place to place. In articles about California, we use California's definition (enshrined in law) of what constitutes a "city", not yours.  Best regards, —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the the "O" cities?
Like Oakland? it jumps from N to P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.212.155.200 (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The "O" section was deleted by vandals. I restored it on Feb 11th.  Stepheng3 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the "H" cities?
Hey, where are the "H" cities? There are several cities with H in California, like Hayward, Hawthorne, Huntington Beach and the like —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.131.105 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An IP user deleted the H section back in December. I have reverted the change. Stepheng3 (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Studio City
Why is Studio City listed? It's not an incorporated city, but a district of the City of Los Angeles. 99.129.49.150 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Studio City and other San Fernando Valley districts voted for secession in July 2006, but wasn't enough to get approved by the city of Los Angeles nor the Los Angeles County board of supervisors. In my Thomas Bros. California road atlas, I get Tujunga with a dark circle to indicate it's an incorporated city (but small letters, while cities have big lettering) except its' still a district of the city of Los Angeles. They attempt to seceded from the city of L.A. in the early 1990's, probably the mapmakers thought Tujunga had already did (wrong.). + 71.102.10.169 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature
As there is only one class of municipality in California, which can be termed either "city" or "town" with no legal significance hinging on the name, shouldn't this be renamed to "list of municipalities in California"? Postdlf (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Makes sense to me. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "Municipality" often means different things in different places -- different states, different countries. Sometimes, I have seen something called a "municipality" when all it was is an unincorporated village and its surrounding farmland. [I know this sounds foolish, but there are lots of strange governments.] On the other hand, in North America, Australia, etc., we often think of a "municipality" as being something a place on the order of New York City, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, San Francisco, Dallas - Ft. Worth, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston....
 * The word "municipality" has become so vague that it is practically useless.98.67.97.225 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

featured list candidacy
As someone who's been tending this list for over a year, I'd love to see it featured, and I hope other editors are as excited about this as I am. One thing I know it needs is to be made sortable, and I think I can do that easily, if there's no objection. Personally, I'd like to see additional information for each municipality, such as the county it's in, its coordinates, and other rarely-changing information of that sort. Population figures might be worth adding; I'm not sure. Opinions? --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Coordinates and population would be good. One of the problems with sorting is the sheer volume of cities Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made it a sortable table. If this causes problems, feel free to revert. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I found this page on my travels around California related articles on Wikipedia. I would suggest making the incorporation dates as year-month-day, so that when you want to sort by the incorporation date, it doesn't just alphabetize the list, but it will show it in chronological order. Just a suggestion. Killiondude (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm gradually adding sort templates to the dates, which will have the desired effect while retaining easy readability. I'd welcome your help. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. The dates should sort correctly now.  Of course, if I'd known about dts before I started, I would've used it instead of sort.  But I don't think it's worth switching at this point. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cabazon is not the only city to disincorporate. The former city of Hornitos, in Mariposa County was incorporated in 1871 and disincorportaed in 1972, after the population had dipped to under 100 people. I think the disincorporation was done by Mariposa County because a government of the City of Hornitos no longer existed.

The county took the action because title to some land in the area was held by the defunct City of Hornitos

Reference improvements
I added a refimprove tag to this article earlier. My main concern had been that the population column appeared to be completely unreferenced, but on re-reviewing the article I see that there is a reference for the population but in a different location than I expected. I.e. the citation for the incorporation dates is located in the column header, but the citation for the population is located in the text above the table and not in the column header. That inconsistency confused me when I read too quickly, but was easily correctible (which I have now done). In addition however, the first two paragraphs of the lead include numerous specific facts that need citation, so I feel the refimprove should remain for the time being. Examples of facts needing citation include the obsolescence of "township", the equivalence of "city" and "town", the history of Willow Glen and Alviso and Cabazon. — Ipoellet (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Former Municipality Table
I'm working on one on my userpage, if anyone thinks it shouldn't be done, say so or take it down when I finish. Samhuddy (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I look forward to seeing the list. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sam. Please provide your sources so the data can be verified by others. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge/redirect List of cities in California (by population) into this page? Discuss
I have suggested on Talk:List of cities in California (by population) merging/redirecting that article into this one, since this one seems better, does everything that List of cities in California (by population) does, and has more content and is better organized. Darkest tree (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. top 100 is arbitrary. my only concern is that this article get better population estimates, as the 2010 census numbers may be out, and this has estimates from 2008. (other article is no better i believe)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * A year has gone by and no objections. Adding merge tags to the articles. Darkest tree (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing City
The article states that there are 482 municipalities, but the list contains 481. Is there one missing? Mattximus (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The list was missing San Mateo, which has now been added. Thanks for catching that. --Kurykh (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just say it: Incorporated
Some people think of the difference between cities and towns like this: incorporated = cities and unincorporated = towns. Maybe this is technically wrong or we have no "common sense" (as earlier stated on this page), but nevertheless I don't think I'm alone in this. As Quincy has been deemed unqualified for the list merely for being unincorporated, that obviously is the salient factor, so why not say so? Just change the name to List of incorporated cities and towns in California. Or, alternatively, List of cities and towns in California (Incorporated). If you state the plan right at the git go, people will know what they are looking at and won't try to stuff the Quincys of the world in the list (which proves the point). CampKohler (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Landers (San Bernardino county) and Cabazon (Riverside county) are "towns", but not incorporated or they would been on the list. Cabazon actually was a city from 1956 to 1973 when the city government was disbanded. Landers had a council since 1997 - the third in the Morongo Basin of the Mojave Desert after Yucca Valley (town but incorporated in 1991) and Twentynine Palms (incorporated as a city in 1987). 67.49.89.214 (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

12 fastest-growing cities, includes unincorporated Cabazon, in the 2010s, due to low-cost housing in the California Desert region: Adelanto, Apple Valley, California City, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Hesperia, Indio, Lancaster, Palmdale, and Victorville. They are popular with Hispanics and Latinos who relocated from Central L.A. to the suburbs, esp. majorities or pluralities in Indio and Victorville. 2605:E000:100D:E482:E41A:DD9:EED0:F58 (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

References to law vs. links.
Reference 5 (currently) points to code sections. Since most codes are online, shouldn't the references be links to the pertinent law? Is there a reason not to do that? What's best practice? CampKohler (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Have the cities photos arrangement changed?
I noticed (viewed using latest Chrome with a maximized window) that the photos of the cities, which used to be aligned vertically, taking a lot of space above the list, was recently showing grouped more compactly into a horizontal and vertical alignment. I thought this was a good change, because there was less scrolling required to get to the list and it looked more finished. Today I notice that it is back to the vertical. I haven't looked at recent edits or even know if this is some kind of browser artifact that might change from time to time. Is there some way to fix the photos (at least for a maximized window) in a horizontal and vertical grouping? CampKohler (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Code vs. charter?
This may not be the place for such a distinction, but there's an important difference between California cities that are governed by the provisions of the California Government Code and cities that have their own city charters. Should there be another column for "code" and "charter"? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Mobile
Mattximus, you do realize that on mobile, this requires you to scroll through what amounts to two to three full screen's worth of images before you get to the list right? Timothy Joseph Wood 07:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is normal. Mobile screens are small and most wikipedia pages will require some scrolling to get through the infobox, table of contents, and images. It would be a disservice to wikipedia to go through various pages and delete all images (you deleted every single one) because you don't want to scroll a bit on your phone. Mattximus (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

History of state's largest cities
From 1850 to 1940, the largest cities of California were 1. San Francisco, along with (not in rank of order) Los Angeles (became #2 in 1900 and surpassed SF in 1930), Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, Fresno (the largest in the Central third of the state) and competing were Bakersfield, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara and Stockton. In 1940, Long Beach entered the top 10. In 1960, Anaheim and in 1970, Santa Ana. In 1970, San Diego surpassed San Francisco as the #2 city, and in 1990, San Jose surpassed San Francisco to become the largest in the northern third of the state. Riverside is now larger than San Bernardino and Santa Barbara dropped from the list in 1960. 67.49.89.214 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of cities and towns in California. 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/20110721183215/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceID=130&resourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=130&ResourceType=Site
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221091414/http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc to http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124020222/http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_Table3A_RedistrictingFile.xls to http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_Table3A_RedistrictingFile.xls

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) 19:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of cities and towns in California. 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/20130516111853/http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010_Census_Count_Corrections_List.pdf to http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010_Census_Count_Corrections_List.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514233630/http://www.rctlma.org/rcd/content/progress_reports/pr_2011/eastvale.pdf to http://www.rctlma.org/rcd/content/progress_reports/pr_2011/eastvale.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514222036/http://www.rctlma.org/rcd/content/progress_reports/pr_2011/jurupa_valley.pdf to http://www.rctlma.org/rcd/content/progress_reports/pr_2011/jurupa_valley.pdf

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) 21:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Central cities in CA (60 of them)
8 out of 10 largest cities are county seats, except Anaheim in Orange county and Long Beach in Los Angeles county; San Francisco itself is a city-county government; and in Riverside county, Indio is a "secondary" county seat being 70 miles away from the "primary" one Riverside. 2605:E000:100D:E482:E41A:DD9:EED0:F58 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Question
Does anyone have an issue with adding a column in there for charter cities vs non-charter cities?Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A whole column would be a bad idea, it’s already too wide as is. I suppose if you really want to add it you can add the word “chartered” to the relevant cities in the type column, or a footnote for all chartered cities. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I don’t think it’s necessary or even notable enough to include. Pf1127 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What about a checkmark? (chartered vs. non-chartered)Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

If you really want, why not a symbol in the legend indicating chartered, like the dagger we have for county seats, which can be placed after the word "city" in the type column and the legend can be expanded to include this new symbol? Mattximus (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That works. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Just have to make sure you have a properly cited source which you can add to the header “type” Mattximus (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * you got it. I'll write it in draft before posting. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

New template for 2020 Census
Hi everyone, the new census results are coming in a few days, and I'm wondering if anyone else would support this format? Table needs work of course, but this is the idea. 15:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The new July 1, 2020 estimates for cities and towns in the United States have officially been released today. (Please see the accompanying .csv files here: ) Should we add them to the article (and the template above) now, or should we wait until we also have the official results of the April 1, 2020 census? Pf1127 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pf1127 If we can add them to the template above that would be fantastic, but do we know when the official results are out? I think it's best to wait for the census results as they should be out soon if I am not mistaken. Mattximus (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mattximus I've heard a number of things since the beginning of the year, so I'm actually not sure. You can find the release schedule here but it's a little unclear as many of the release dates also refer to the July 1, 2020 data and estimates. It sounds like the April 2020 census data will be released at the end of this year or possibly at the beginning of next year when it accompanies the Vintage 2021 tables/estimates or the 2010 to 2020 Intercensal Estimates. Pf1127 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Cities and towns under 5,000 people
It looks like the new redistricting data from the 2020 census contains census counts for local municipalities, but I have been having difficulty finding them for municipalities under 5,000 people (US Census QuickFacts only provides them for municipalities with 5,000 people or greater). I did not have this problem when I helped other editors update List of largest cities in California by population, as even the top 100 cities in California had a population of 84,000 or greater. I see that there are about 50 small municipalities in this range missing new census counts right now, although there are two that seem to have them already. Where did these numbers come from? Were they published with the new redistricting data and are they just in a place that's hard to find? In the meantime, should we hold off on making further edits until we can locate and verify the data we need to complete the table? I would hate for all of our new edits to be rolled back and for all of our work to be lost. Pf1127 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I found all the missing items in a strange place: I've cross referenced it and it is accurate. I can try to add some, the problem is it's very cumbersome... Mattximus (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


text:
Reducing agent

In chemistry, a reducing agent (also known as a reductant, reducer, or electron donor) is a chemical species that "donates" an electron to an (called the, , , or ).

Examples of substances that are common reducing agents include hydrogen, the alkali metals, formic acid, oxalic acid, and sulfite compounds.

In their pre-reaction states, reducers have extra electrons (that is, they are by themselves reduced) and oxidizers lack electrons (that is, they are by themselves oxidized). This is commonly expressed in terms of their oxidation states. An agent's oxidation state describes its degree of loss of electrons, where the higher the oxidation state then the fewer electrons it has. So initially, prior to the reaction, a reducing agent is typically in one of its lower possible oxidation states; its oxidation state increases during the reaction while that of the oxidizer decreases. Thus in a redox reaction, the agent whose oxidation state increases, that "loses/donates electrons", that "is oxidized", and that "reduces" is called the or, while the agent whose oxidation state decreases, that "gains/accepts/receives electrons", that "is reduced", and that "oxidizes" is called the  or.

For example, consider the overall reaction for aerobic cellular respiration:

 * C6H12O6(s) + 6O2(g) -> 6CO2(g) + 6H2O(l)

The oxygen (O2) is being reduced, so it is the oxidizing agent. The glucose (C6H12O6) is being oxidized, so it is the reducing agent.

Characteristics
Consider the following reaction:

 * 2 +  → 2  + 2

The reducing agent in this reaction is ferrocyanide. It donates an electron, becoming oxidized to ferricyanide. Simultaneously, that electron is received by the oxidizer chlorine, which is reduced to chloride.

Strong reducing agents easily lose (or donate) electrons. An atom with a relatively large atomic radius tends to be a better reductant. In such species, the distance from the nucleus to the valence electrons is so long that these electrons are not strongly attracted. These elements tend to be strong reducing agents. Good reducing agents tend to consist of atoms with a low electronegativity, which is the ability of an atom or molecule to attract bonding electrons, and species with relatively small ionization energies serve as good reducing agents too.

The measure of a material's ability to reduce is known as its reduction potential. The table below shows a few reduction potentials, which can be changed to oxidation potentials by reversing the sign. Reducing agents can be ranked by increasing strength by ranking their reduction potentials. Reducers donate electrons to (that is, "reduce") oxidizing agents, which are said to "be reduced by" the reducer. The reducing agent is stronger when it has a more negative reduction potential and weaker when it has a more positive reduction potential. The more positive the reduction potential the greater the species' affinity for electrons and tendency to be reduced (that is, to receive electrons). The following table provides the reduction potentials of the indicated reducing agent at 25 °C. For example, among sodium (Na), chromium (Cr), cuprous (Cu+) and chloride (Cl−), it is Na that is the strongest reducing agent while Cl− is the weakest; said differently, Na+ is the weakest oxidizing agent in this list while Cl is the strongest.

Common reducing agents include metals potassium, calcium, barium, sodium and magnesium, and also compounds that contain the hydride H− ion, those being NaH, LiH, LiAlH4 and CaH2.

Some elements and compounds can be both reducing or oxidizing agents. Hydrogen gas is a reducing agent when it reacts with non-metals and an oxidizing agent when it reacts with metals.

 * 2 Li(s) + H2(g) → 2 LiH(s)

Hydrogen (whose reduction potential is 0.0) acts as an oxidizing agent because it accepts an electron donation from the reducing agent lithium (whose reduction potential is -3.04), which causes Li to be oxidized and hydrogen to be reduced.

Hydrogen acts as a reducing agent because it donates its electrons to fluorine, which allows fluorine to be reduced.
 * H2(g) + F2(g) → 2 HF(g)

Importance
Reducing agents and oxidizing agents are the ones responsible for corrosion, which is the "degradation of metals as a result of electrochemical activity". Corrosion requires an anode and cathode to take place. The anode is an element that loses electrons (reducing agent), thus oxidation always occurs in the anode, and the cathode is an element that gains electrons (oxidizing agent), thus reduction always occurs in the cathode. Corrosion occurs whenever there's a difference in oxidation potential. When this is present, the anode metal begins deteriorating, given there is an electrical connection and the presence of an electrolyte.

Examples of redox reaction
Historically, reduction referred to the removal of oxygen from a compound, hence the name 'reduction'. An example of this phenomenon occurred during the Great Oxidation Event, in which biologically−produced molecular oxygen (dioxygen (O2), an oxidizer and electron recipient) was added to the early Earth's atmosphere, which was originally a weakly reducing atmosphere containing reducing gases like methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO) (along with other electron donors) and practically no oxygen because any that was produced would react with these or other reducers (particularly with iron dissolved in sea water), resulting in their. By using water as a reducing agent, aquatic photosynthesizing cyanobacteria produced this molecular oxygen as a waste product. This O2 initially oxidized the ocean's dissolved ferrous iron (Fe(II) − meaning iron in its +2 oxidation state) to form insoluble ferric iron oxides such as Iron(III) oxide (Fe(II) lost an electron to the oxidizer and became Fe(III) − meaning iron in its +3 oxidation state) that precipitated down to the ocean floor to form banded iron formations, thereby removing the oxygen (and the iron). The rate of production of oxygen eventually exceeded the availability of reducing materials that removed oxygen, which ultimately led Earth to gain a strongly oxidizing atmosphere containing abundant oxygen (like the modern atmosphere). The modern sense of donating electrons is a generalization of this idea, acknowledging that other components can play a similar chemical role to oxygen.

The formation of iron(III) oxide;
 * 4Fe + 3O2 → 4Fe3+ + 6O2− → 2Fe2O3

In the above equation, the Iron (Fe) has an oxidation number of 0 before and 3+ after the reaction. For oxygen (O) the oxidation number began as 0 and decreased to 2−. These changes can be viewed as two "half-reactions" that occur concurrently:

 * 1) Oxidation half reaction: Fe0 → Fe3+ + 3e−
 * 2) Reduction half reaction: O2 + 4e− → 2 O2−

Iron (Fe) has been oxidized because the oxidation number increased. Iron is the reducing agent because it gave electrons to the oxygen (O2). Oxygen (O2) has been reduced because the oxidation number has decreased and is the oxidizing agent because it took electrons from iron (Fe).

Common reducing agents

 * Lithium aluminium hydride (Li Al H4), a very strong reducing agent
 * Red-Al (NaAlH2(OCH2CH2OCH3)2), a safer and more stable alternative to lithium aluminum hydride
 * Hydrogen without or with a suitable catalyst; e.g. a Lindlar catalyst
 * Sodium amalgam (Na(Hg))
 * Sodium-lead alloy (Na + Pb)
 * Zinc amalgam (Zn(Hg)) (reagent for Clemmensen reduction)
 * Diborane
 * Sodium borohydride (Na BH4)
 * Ferrous compounds that contain the Fe2+ ion, such as iron(II) sulfate
 * Stannous compounds that contain the Sn2+ ion, such as tin(II) chloride
 * Sulfur dioxide (sometimes also used as an oxidizing agent), Sulfite compounds
 * Dithionates, e.g. Na2S2O6
 * Thiosulfates, e.g. Na2S2O3 (mainly in analytical chemistry)
 * Iodides, such as potassium iodide (K I) (mainly in analytical chemistry)
 * Hydrogen peroxide – mostly an oxidant but can occasionally act as a reducing agent, typically in analytical chemistry
 * Hydrazine (Wolff-Kishner reduction)
 * Diisobutylaluminium hydride (DIBAL-H)
 * Oxalic acid
 * Formic acid (HCOOH)
 * Ascorbic acid (C6H8O6)
 * Reducing sugars, such as erythrose, see Aldose
 * Phosphites, hypophosphites, and phosphorous acid
 * Dithiothreitol (DTT) – used in biochemistry labs to avoid SS-bonds
 * Carbon monoxide (CO)
 * Cyanides in hydrochemical metallurgical processes
 * Carbon (C)
 * Tris-2-carboxyethylphosphine hydrochloride (TCEP)

title: Reducing agent