text:
Talk:News presenter

Comment
I'm not sure why this is in an encyclopedia but I at least changed it to define the characters and corporations as those of the United States of America because other countries in the WORLD (this is the WWW, is it not?) have televisions too and by golly, real live news casts....DW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.30.53 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 January 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the least bit accurate. It lumps anyone who talks about newsworthy items in a broadcast medium. However, there is a vast difference between a newsreader (they do no research) and a reporter. William J Bean (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the rest of us just gather round the wireless and smoke pipes. -- Tarquin 21:27 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * So, news anchors around the world are not the butt of jokes on comedy shows? There's nothing U.S.-specific about this article (not counting the frequent use of the word "American" which you guys just added), other than the list of American news anchors. Add some from other countries. Geez, you foreigners... ;-P -Jazz77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.90.232 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 January 2003 (UTC)

 * I'd rather this page was an encyclopedia article and not a list. So only notable news anchors: who was the first to read the news with no trousers on, for instance. -- Tarquin 22:36 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Is Jeremy Paxman notable? —Ashley Y 11:03, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Lavender Cheung
Is Lavender Cheung actually notable? He recieves no Google hits outside Wikipedia and mirrors, so it's tough for me to judge. - Seth Ilys 20:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merger
No way should this article be merged with Newsreader. They are complementary but different posts. It would make a joke of the article and produce a factually inaccurate mess.

There are 'three types of news presenter -
 * a newsreader, who simply reads the news, is not a journalist but is an actor. Newsreaders aren't members of the National Union of Journalists but simply Actors Equity, the actors' union;
 * a newscaster, who is a working and accredited journalist, and is an active participant in the process of putting together a bulletin, as well as interviewing people for stories;
 * a News Anchor, who is a different style of newscaster. Whereas a newscaster is in effect a journalist-presenter, a News Anchor is a newscaster who has a personalised identification with a bulletin. This phenomenon is particularly associated with the US and Canada, which is where the term came from. For example, NBC Nightly News was so strongly associated with Tom Brokaw that even when he was not there, the bulletin would be announced as being his, with the 'stand-in' NA then saying something like "Tom is away on assignment tonight", etc. Ditto with Peter Jennings on ABC News and Dan Rather with CBS Evening News. Some US stations, particularly rolling news stations, use 'news anchors' but place less emphasis on the presenter, but still place more emphasis than is the norm with newscasters.

For example, Anne Doyle is the principal newscaster on RTÉ Nine O'Clock News but no-one says it is her bulletin, in the way NBC Nightly News was Brokaw's. Similarly Peter Sissons was the principal newscaster on the BBC Ten O'Clock News yet no-one would ever call it his bulletin, and his name was never used unless he was actually delivering.

Put simply -
 * a newsreader is a professional newsreader and nothing more. He or she arrives in, reads someone else's script and goes home;
 * a newscaster is a working professional journalist who writes the script he or she delivers, does journalistic interviews, and is a hands-on presence in news gathering.
 * A news anchor is a personality newscaster who personifies the bulletin, is identified exclusively with it, with his or her personality shaping the credibility of the newscast.

So it would be an elementary mistake to mix up the three roles, something this article does. It needs severe editing from people who understand the media, not merging into an article that is about something different. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 19:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The theory is that these are all highly interrelated and there is some duplication about the whole thing. The information is easy enough to keep separate, just merge them together into one decent article.  It just seems a little odd to have to jump around to three different articles which are essentially about slightly different aspects of the same thing.  violet/riga (t) 19:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * unworkable. If you put everything in at newsreader then you have to call Jon Snow a newsreader. Professional journalists go ballistic if being called a mere newsreader when they are working journalists and newscasters and not simply readers of the news. If you put it as newscaster then you have to call Kenneth Kendal and Charles Mitchel newscasters but they weren't - they were professional readers of the news and calling them newscasters infuriates real newscasters and journalists. And if you put it in at news anchor you misrepresent the roles of hundreds of newscasters and newsreaders on the planet, because they aren't news anchors.

 * The standard wikipedia writing approach is not to dump everything in under the one title when large chunks of the article would then be under the wrong name. The professional standard is to use the separate terms for what they are, different roles doing different things, and so be able to link Kendal, Michel, Brokaw, Snow etc to the right category for them. It avoids confusion, inaccuracy and has absolute clarity. The bottom line in encyclopaedias is clarity and accuracy, not 'dump everything together and who cares if it is actually wrong' convenience. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 20:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * What would be wrong with news presenter then? That would give a good generic title and these articles would become sections.  Newscaster redirects to news anchor already, and newsreader is just a poorly-constructed stub, so it would hardly be a major change.  violet/riga (t) 20:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) There is no such term, so people aren't likely to google it. We shouldn't make up non-existent term;
 * 2) News presenter could equally apply to other presenters of news programmes, not just news anchors, newsreaders and newscasters. For example, one could call the presenters of news magazine programmes as news presenters, so not only does the term not exist, using it would be non-specific and could involve any presenter of any news-orientated broadcast or programme. Fear ÉIREANN[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]] (talk) 20:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The term is used:
 * "Television News Presenter" course listed on the British Film Industry site
 * Used by the BBC Radio 4 site, and it also notes the Sony Award for News presenter and other BBC and ITV pages
 * Used as a broader term for use in the headline, instead of "news anchor" which is used in the article
 * As a cartoon (oddly)
 * By management and representatives
 * By the Press Complaints Commission

 * Seeing as they all present the news I don't think it would misrepresent them. Your complaint of it including other presenters would easily be touched upon in the lead of the article. violet/riga (t) 21:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Further, "news anchor" is obviously a more American/Canadian term and "newsreader" is a term used elsewhere. This article currently includes information about the latter which surely cannot remain here if we are to have a separate newsreader article.  Your definition of the terms, while correct, does not reflect the current status of the articles.  violet/riga (t) 21:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

News presenter is tolerable, but just about. It is generic title, not the name of anything. I fail to see why it is necessary to move accurately titled names that deal with the different terms and roles used in the broadcasting industry to an article under a made-up generic name that is only used because newscasters threatened to boycott any grouping that called them newsreader when they are not that, and would call newsreaders newscasters. News presenter is a temporary name used in the industry (and hated by all. The NUJ, of which I am a member, wants it banned) but which professionals in the industry avoid like the plague where possible. IMHO we should keep the articles separate and create a template linking them and all the other named jobs in broadcasting, to keep clarity and allow for more information to be added.

One thing I often do when these sort of issues arise is talk to professionals I deal with (I am both an academic and a journalist, so I contacts in both areas) and bounce issues that are being debated on wikipedia. I spoke on this issue to radio and television broadcasters I know in three stations (I in the UK. 2 in Ireland) and also to academics who teach journalism. A lot of media heads were at a conference this morning. As I was there I took the opportunity to sound people out. I spoke to 21 people. One said "news presenter is OK. But god I hate that term." 20 thought it logical to treat the separate roles in news communication separate.

The other problem with news presenter is that, as it is not a real term but a generic one, there are no limits to what it could refer to. For example many broadcasting organisations have news and current affairs as one group which they internally divide. But there is a real demarcation. If Wikipedia creates news presenter as a catch-all term, there is a real likelihood in the future of edit wars people different people argue that different individuals in the news & current affairs would or would not fit within that category. For example, until he retired last year Professor Brian Farrell was a current affairs presenter with RTÉ's Prime Time show. As it deals with news issues, and he was the presenter of it, would he be a news presenter? He would go ballistic if you linked him in with newsreaders, as he is a working journalist and they are actors. Put him in the list and most people would delete it on sight. Others would add it in again. Ditto with his replacement Miriam O'Callaghan, the BBC's Richard Dimbleby, Sir Robin Day and David Dimbleby, and ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby. And what about The Late Late Show presenters Gay Byrne, Frank Hall and Pat Kenny, all of whom presented (or in Pat's place still present) a show that covers everything from authors chatting about books to heavyweight news stuff. Pat could be called a news presenter but it would be a gross distortion of what he does. Also is John Humphries a news presenter as he presents a news programme, but is not a newscaster, though he was at one stage a newscaster in the 1980s?

The problem with news presenter is that it is a generic term could mean anything or nothing. Because of its ambiguity it could produce an unencyclopadic article that because of its title could have people adding in stuff that in the journalistic would be regarded as garbage, but which a non-journalist, going by the ambiguous nature of the name, could think correct. Newscaster, newsreader and news anchor are clearly defined terms, that would allow people to slot a person in precisely into the job they do. Having news presenter would cause all sorts of confusion. Even if it could be narrowed down to news bulletin presenters (which it can't) it would not allow individuals to be categorised in their own article. Calling John Snow, Peter Sissons, Charles Mitchell and Maurice O'Doherty news presenters would be misleading. The former two as working journalists and newscasters. The latter two were not journalists but actors as newsreaders.

In terms of accuracy, factual reliability, usability, etc using the accurate terms makes more sense than replacing them with an ambiguous generic term which has no clear definition and when used will make articles linking to it less, not more, accurate. Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 22:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand your views, and thanks for the detailed explanation. Since the terms are clearly defined, yet confused by some (including the media themselves), I feel that would strengthen to need for a central discussion of exactly what you are talking about.  I've not been able to come up with a better name than News presenter yet, but I think that would cover the areas well.  Having three separate articles, I think, may confuse some people, duplicate information and simply lead to the reader having to jump between them.  I see your worry about the term being too broad, but if it is constructed well enough to begin with I don't think people will change it too much.  I've also just seen that Journalist contains some duplication of this too.

 * My idea for the news presenter article would be to have headings to distinguish each of the three titles, and an introduction which details the similarities, differences and correct terminologies. The lead would deal with the fact that "news presenter" is a broad term and that the more specific titles are preferred. violet/riga (t) 13:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * This sounds like plain common sense. Having three articles for what are very similar roles would be confusing and needlessly nitpicking, much like having different articles for shopkeeper and merchant. Pete 06:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notable News anchors list
The list of so called "Notable News anchors" is becoming more of a LIST of news anchors. Some of the anchors listed have not done anything notable. Some of the anchors listed deserve to be on the list, but that section definently needs clean up. Also, would the list be considered POV? --Kfrogers 06:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Should Letizia Ortiz be listed here?85.55.176.123 17:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we just cut the section entirely? If not, what criteria should one need to fulfil to be considered "notable?" Dannysjgdf (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast images of newspapers
Hello. Can someone add a section on what seems (to me) to be a fairly recent trend: video broadcasts of actual newspapers, sometimes with (and even without) comment by a "presenter" who turns the pages while the camera pans around. A fairly lame way to present the news, but I'm sure the cost is minimal. The TV news equivalent of reading/describing the comics page over the radio, and a short step above doing the same with blogs or web pages. Ewlyahoocom 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Notable News anchors list
I agree; on top of that...all of the American anchors featured are at the network level. Give me a break! There are local folks that are a hell of a lot better than some listed. Clearly not a true representation.--Bdj95 22:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

 * On 2006-12-09, user added a Very Long List to the "American newsreaders" ... Wikipedia's definition of "notable" for these kinds of lists is simply that they have an article in Wikipedia, so I'm going to remove all of the un-wikied names as original research.

 * If someone else wants to check each one to see if they have an article, then you can return them to the list ... I could have wikified all of the names and simply removed the ones that are redlinked, but if the original contributor was too lazy to do it in the first place, then just kiss 'em good-bye ... I'm also Too Busy to try to alphabetize this list per the MOS. — 08:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable News Anchors examplefarm
The list is the vast majority of the article and is unwieldy and not useful. I feel that it should either be moved to its own separate "List of" article or simply trimmed down dramatically. — wfaulk 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian newsreaders section
It's embarassing to see the overkill there. Basically every newsreader on Australian TV. No, they are ALL NOT notable! Sections for each city is ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.252.10 (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Satire
Just a thought, but considering the percentage of young Americans (and let's not joke; most Wikipedians are also American) that get their news mainly from the Comedy Central shows The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, shouldn't Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert be included in this list? 12.216.169.187 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those shows are technically comedy, and do not fit into the category of news programs at all. South Park finds humor in current events, but is definitely not a news program.Landfritter (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the list to its own article List of news presenters by nationality.
This article should focus on what news presenters are and what they do rather than on listing everyone who'se ever been a news anchor in his life.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Anchorman as cronkiter in Swedish
I've watched the news from Sweden on and off for the past 30 years, and have never heard the post of anchorman referred to as a cronkiter. A little web searching revealed no such thing except for English language articles concerning the death of Walter Cronkite.

Looking at the Swedish version of the news presenter page gives these terms: Programledar, programvärd, programpresentatör, and nyhetsankar.

Perhaps some validation of this would be in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.122.238 (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I have changed the assertion, and cited Ben Zimmer's account of how this urban myth seems to have arisen. Dactylion (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Radio presenter
What is the name for a radio presenter, not neccesarily about news?. And the participans (professionally or often) in a radio program (space). Links to this conceopts would be added to the see also section. Regards. --Nopetro (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "anchor".
It would be nice if the section on "etymology" gave even the slightest hint where the word comes from, not just who supposedly was the first to be called it (which, BTW, the article on Cronkite disagrees with, and says he wasn't the first to be called "anchor". It's my understanding that an etymology should include why they called the person "anchor", what it means. When I look up the etymology of a word, I'd like to know more than "Its first recorded use was in 1884 in the New York Tribune. The end." In short, why the hell is it "anchor", and what does that imply. Why not call him "chief reader", or "masthead"? AnnaGoFast (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Too much criticism
Half the darned article is long tedious paragraphs of "criticism." Can't we cut that down some? (Or eliminate it completely?) 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 * It's not only long, but the points being made are written largely in Wikipedia's own voice, making it non-neutral. Statements of opinion need to be specifically attributed to people or groups making them, not stated as facts. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Qualities of an anchor
objective, Authentic, Understandable, Clarity of words, Timeliness, speak like known, and good command on words Mallicktitiksha20 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:News presenter


text:
History of Irish legislatures

A number of legislatures have existed in Ireland since mediaeval times. The first Irish legislature was the Parliament of Ireland. However, after its abolition, in 1801, there was no legislature in Ireland, of any kind until 1919. Since that date a number of legislatures have existed on the island.

Parliament of Ireland
This body consisted of the King of Ireland and two chambers: the Irish House of Commons and the Irish House of Lords) which existed in Lordship of Ireland (1171–1541) and the Kingdom of Ireland (1541–1800). This parliament operated under major restrictions, including Poynings' Law and the Penal Laws, imposed by the English and British Crown, by the English and British Parliament and by the King-in-Council. Many of these restrictions were removed in 1782, producing what became known as the Constitution of 1782. The Kingdom of Ireland merged with the Kingdom of Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.

It was subject to an Irish executive, presided over by the English/British selected Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (previously called the 'Lord Deputy'), which was ultimately answerable not to it but to the English/British Government in London.

Over the centuries, the Irish parliament met in a number of locations both inside and outside Dublin. Among its most famous meeting places were Dublin Castle, the Bluecoat School, Chichester House and its final permanent home, the Irish Houses of Parliament in College Green, also sometimes called the Irish Parliament House. It is now generally called the "Bank of Ireland", an institution which took ownership of the building in 1804 and used it as its headquarters until the 1970s, when a new headquarters was built. The former seat of parliament remains a branch of the bank.

In 1642–49, during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, there was brief experiment in independent Irish government known as Confederate Ireland. Its legislature, the General Assembly, met once a year in Kilkenny to review the work of the executive branch (which it appointed) - the Supreme Council.

Dáil Éireann (1919–1922)
This was a revolutionary parliament formed by Irish MPs elected to the British House of Commons, who assembled in Dublin in January 1919. Dáil Éireann operated under a temporary constitution, called the Dáil Constitution, which created a prime minister called the President of Dáil Éireann (also known as Príomh Aire) and a Ministry of Dáil Éireann. During the period from August 1921 to January 1922, Éamon de Valera used the title President of the Irish Republic.

The Dáil met in two locations, in the Round Room of the Mansion House, and later in the then University College Dublin campus in Earslfort Terrace in Dublin, where its famously ratified the Anglo-Irish Treaty in December 1921.

Parliament of Southern Ireland (1920–1922)
The Parliament of Southern Ireland was created by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and consisted of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and the Senate. This parliament did not in reality function, except to ratify the Anglo-Irish Treaty in January 1922. In 1922, a government theoretically answerable to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, called the Provisional Government of Ireland, was created under Michael Collins.

The House of Commons was officially based in the Royal College of Science in Dublin, now the Irish Government Buildings. However the Commons only met on a handful of occasions, primarily to ratify the Treaty in January 1922 and confirm Michael Collins as head of the Provisional Government.

Oireachtas of the Irish Free State (1922–1937)
This legislature consisted of the King and two chambers: the Free State Dáil and the Free State Seanad (Senate of Ireland). It created by the Irish Free State's 1922 Constitution. The Seanad and the King's role in the Oireachtas were both abolished by constitutional amendment in 1936. The executive was answerable to Dáil Éireann, was called the Executive Council and was presided over by a prime minister called the President of the Executive Council.

The Provisional Government under W. T. Cosgrave hired the use of the main lecture theatre of the Royal Dublin Society in its headquarters in Leinster House, a formal ducal palace, to enable a formal state opening of the new two chamber Oireachtas of the new Irish Free State and the delivery of the speech from the throne by the new Governor-General of the Irish Free State, Tim Healy in December 1922. In 1924, the new Free State under Cosgrave bought Leinster House as a temporary seat of parliament, pending the erection or conversion of an alternative. One major contender for the location was Royal Hospital Kilmainham, a former soldiers' home that ultimately became a modern art gallery.

Oireachtas Éireann (since 1937)
This Oireachtas consists of the President of Ireland and two chambers: the modern Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. It was established by the 1937 Constitution. The executive is called the Government and is answerable to the Dáil. It is presided over by a prime minister called the Taoiseach. Though plans were periodically discussed for the erection of a new parliament building (a site was even considered in the Phoenix Park), parliament has remained in Leinster House, to which additional offices were added in the 1950s and most recently in the year 2000.

Legislatures in Northern Ireland

 * Parliament of Northern Ireland - a home rule parliament of 1920–1972.
 * Sunningdale Northern Ireland Assembly - a home rule assembly established in 1972.
 * Northern Ireland Assembly (1982) - a home rule assembly established in 1982.
 * Modern Northern Ireland Assembly - a home rule assembly established in 1998.

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

title: History of Irish legislatures


text:
Andrés Bonifacio

Andrés Bonifacio y de Castro (, ; November 30, 1863 –May 10, 1897) was a Filipino revolutionary leader. He is often called "The Father of the Philippine Revolution", and considered a national hero of the Philippines.

He was a co-founder and later Kataastaasang Pangulo (Spanish: Presidente Supremo, “Supreme President”, often shortened by contemporaries and historians to Supremo) of the Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan more commonly known as the "Katipunan", a movement that sought the independence of the Philippines from Spanish colonial rule and started the Revolution.

Bonifacio reorganized the Katipunan into a revolutionary government, with himself as Pangulo (President) of a nation-state called Haring Bayang Katagalugan (“Sovereign Nation of the Tagalog People” or “Sovereign Tagalog Nation”), also Republika ng Katagaluguan (Spanish: República Tagala, “Tagalog Republic”), wherein "Tagalog" referred to all those born in the Philippine Islands and not merely in Tagalog-speaking regions Hence, some historians have argued that he should be considered the First President of the Tagalogs instead of the Philippines; that is why he is not included in the official list of Presidents.

Bonifacio was executed in 1897 by Major Lázaro Macapagal under orders of the Consejo de la Guerra (Council of War) led by General Mariano Noriel, on the basis of committing sedition and treason against the government.

Early life and education

Andrés Bonifacio y de Castro was born on November 30, 1863, in Tondo, Manila, and was the first of six children of Catalina de Castro, a tornatras from Zambales, and Santiago Bonifacio, a native of Taguig. His parents named him after Saint Andrew the Apostle, the patron saint of Manila whose feast day falls on his birth date. He learned the alphabet through his aunt. He was enrolled in Guillermo Osmeña's private elementary school and also in Escuela Municipal de Niños on Calle Ilaya in Tondo. He reached third year in a private secondary school in Manila.

Some sources assert that he was orphaned at an early age, but, considering the existence of an 1881 record that has Bonifacio's parents listed as living in Tondo, it is disputed by others. To support his family financially, Bonifacio made canes and paper fans which he and his young siblings sold (after they were orphaned, according to the traditional view). He also made posters for business firms. This became their thriving family business that continued when the men of the family, namely Andres, Ciriaco, Procopio, and Troadio, were employed with private and government companies, which provided them with decent living conditions.

In his late teens, he first worked either as an agent or mandatario (messenger) for the British trading firm Fleming and Company, where he rose to become a corredor (broker) of tar, rattan and other goods. He later transferred to Fressell and Company, a German trading firm, where he worked as a bodeguero (storehouse keeper) responsible for warehouse inventory. He was also a theater actor and often played the role of Bernardo Carpio, a fictional character in Tagalog folklore.

Not finishing his formal education, Bonifacio turned to self-education by reading books. He read books about the French Revolution, biographies of the presidents of the United States, books about contemporary Philippine penal and civil codes, and novels such as Victor Hugo's Les Misérables, Eugène Sue's Le Juif errant and José Rizal's Noli Me Tángere and El filibusterismo. Aside from Tagalog and Spanish, he could at least speak some English because of his work in a British firm.

Marriages
Bonifacio's first wife, Mónica (surname unknown), was his neighbor in Palomar, Tondo. She died of leprosy and they had no recorded children.

In 1892, Bonifacio, a 29-year-old widower, met the 18-year-old Gregoria de Jesús through his friend Teodoro Plata, who was her cousin. Gregoria, nicknamed “Oriang”, was the daughter of a prominent citizen and landowner from Caloocan. Her parents initially disapproved of their relationship, for Bonifacio was a Freemason, and the movement was at odds with the Catholic Church. They eventually acquiesced, and Andrés and Gregoria were married in a Catholic ceremony at Binondo Church in March 1893 or 1894. The couple were married later that day in separate Katipunan rites at a friend's house in Santa Cruz, Manila.

They had one son, Andrés, Jr., in early 1896 who died of smallpox in his infancy.

Early political activism
In 1892, Bonifacio became one of the founding members of José Rizal's La Liga Filipina, an organization that called for political reforms in Spain's colonial government of the Philippines. However, La Liga disbanded after only one meeting, for Rizal was arrested and deported to Dapitan in the Western Mindanao region. Bonifacio, Apolinario Mabini and others revived La Liga in Rizal's absence and Bonifacio was active at organizing local chapters in Manila. He would become the chief propagandist of the revived Liga.

La Liga Filipina contributed moral and financial support to the Propaganda Movement of Filipino reformists in Spain.

Katipunan
On the night of July 7, 1892, the day after Rizal's deportation was announced, Bonifacio and others officially "founded" the Katipunan, or in full, Kataas-taasan, Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan ("Highest and Most Respected Society of the Country's Children"; Bayan can also denote community, people, and nation). The secret society sought independence from Spain through armed revolt. It was influenced by Freemasonry through its rituals and organization, and several members including Bonifacio were also Freemasons. Within the society Bonifacio used the pseudonym May pag-asa. Newly found documents though suggest that Katipunan has already been existing as early as January 1892.

For a time, Bonifacio worked with both the Katipunan and La Liga Filipina. La Liga eventually split because some members like Bonifacio lost hope for peaceful reform and stopped their monetary aid. The more conservative members, mostly wealthy members, who still believed in peaceful reforms set up the Cuerpo de Compromisarios, which pledged continued support to the reformists in Spain. The radicals were subsumed into the Katipunan. From Manila, the Katipunan expanded to several provinces, including Batangas, Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Nueva Ecija. Most of its members, called Katipuneros, came from the lower and middle classes, and many of its local leaders were prominent figures in their municipalities. At first exclusively male, membership was later extended to females, with Bonifacio's wife Gregoria de Jesús as a leading member.

From the beginning, Bonifacio was one of the chief Katipunan officers, although he did not become its Presidente Supremo (Supreme President) until 1895. He was the third head of the Katipunan after Deodato Arellano and Román Basa. Prior to this, he served as the society's comptroller and then as its "fiscal" (advocate/procurator). The society had its own laws, bureaucratic structure and elective leadership. For each province involved, the Katipunan Supreme Council coordinated with provincial councils in charge of public administration and military affairs, and with local councils in charge of affairs on the district or barrio level.

Within the society, Bonifacio developed a strong friendship with Emilio Jacinto, who served as his adviser and confidant, as well as a member of the Supreme Council. Bonifacio adopted Jacinto's Kartilya primer as the official teachings of the society in place of his own Decalogue, which he judged as inferior. Bonifacio, Jacinto and Pío Valenzuela collaborated on the society's organ, Kalayaan (Freedom), which had only one printed issue. Bonifacio wrote several pieces for the paper, including the poem Pag-ibig sa Tinubúang Lupà (approx. "Love for One's Homeland" ) under the pseudonym Agapito Bagumbayan. The publication of Kalayaan in March 1896 led to a great increase in the society's membership. The Katipunan movement spread throughout Luzon, to Panay in the Visayas and even as far as Mindanao. From less than 300 members in January 1896, it had 30,000 to 40,000 by August 1896.

The rapid increase in Katipunan activity drew the suspicion of the Spanish authorities. By early 1896, Spanish intelligence was aware of the existence of a seditious secret society, and suspects were kept under surveillance and arrests were made. On May 3, Bonifacio held a general assembly of Katipunan leaders in Pasig, where they debated when to start the revolution. While some officers, especially Bonifacio, believed a revolution was inevitable, some members, especially Santiago Alvarez and Emilio Aguinaldo both of Cavite, expressed reservations and disagreement regarding the planned revolt due to lack of firearms. The consensus was to consult José Rizal in Dapitan before launching armed action, so Bonifacio sent Pío Valenzuela to Rizal. Rizal turned out to be against the revolution, believing it to be premature. He recommended more preparation, but suggested that, in the event the revolution did break out, they should seek the leadership of Antonio Luna, who was widely regarded as a brilliant military leader.

Start of the uprising
The Spanish authorities confirmed the existence of the Katipunan on August 19, 1896. Hundreds of Filipino suspects, both innocent and guilty, were arrested and imprisoned for treason. José Rizal (José Protasio Rizal Mercado y Realonda) was then on his way to Cuba to serve as a doctor in the Spanish colonial army in exchange for his release from Dapitan. When the news broke, Bonifacio first tried to convince Rizal, quarantined aboard a ship in Manila Bay, to escape and join the imminent revolt. Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto and disguised themselves as sailors and went to the pier where Rizal's ship was anchored. Jacinto personally met with Rizal, who rejected their rescue offer. Rizal himself was later arrested, tried and executed.

Eluding an intensive manhunt, Bonifacio called thousands of Katipunan members to a mass gathering in Caloocan, where they decided to start their uprising. The event, marked by the tearing of cedulas (personal identity documents) was later called the "Cry of Balintawak" or "Cry of Pugad Lawin"; the exact location and date of the Cry are disputed. The Supreme Council of the Katipunan declared a nationwide armed revolution against Spain and called for a simultaneous coordinated attack on the capital Manila on August 29. Bonifacio appointed generals to lead rebel forces to Manila. Other Katipunan councils were also informed of their plans. Before hostilities erupted, Bonifacio reorganized the Katipunan into an open de facto revolutionary government with him as Supremo of the rebel army and the Supreme Council as his cabinet. On August 28, Bonifacio issued the following general proclamation:

This manifesto is for all of you. It is absolutely necessary for us to stop at the earliest possible time the nameless oppositions being perpetrated on the sons of the country who are now suffering the brutal punishment and tortures in jails, and because of this please let all the brethren know that on Saturday, the 29th of the current month, the revolution shall commence according to our agreement. For this purpose, it is necessary for all towns to rise simultaneously and attack Manila at the same time. Anybody who obstructs this sacred ideal of the people will be considered a traitor and an enemy, except if he is ill; or is not physically fit, in which case he shall be tried according to the regulations we have put in force.

Mount of Liberty, 28 August 1896 – ANDRÉS BONIFACIO

On August 30, 1896, Bonifacio personally led an attack on San Juan del Monte to capture the town's powder magazine and water station (which supplied Manila). The defending Spaniards, outnumbered, fought a delaying battle until reinforcements arrived. Once reinforced, the Spaniards drove Bonifacio's forces back with heavy casualties. Bonifacio and his troops regrouped near Mariquina (now Marikina), San Mateo and Montalban (now Rodriguez). Elsewhere, fighting between rebels and Spanish forces occurred in San Felipe Neri (now Mandaluyong), Sampaloc, Santa Ana, Pandacan, Pateros, Mariquina, Caloocan, San Pedro Macati (now Makati) and Taguig. The conventional view among Filipino historians is that the planned general Katipunan offensive on Manila was aborted in favor of Bonifacio's attack on San Juan del Monte, which sparked a general state of rebellion in the area. However, more recent studies have advanced the view that the planned offensive did push through and the rebel attacks were integrated; according to this view, Bonifacio's San Juan del Monte battle was only a part of a bigger whole – an unrecognized "Battle for Manila". Despite his reverses, Bonifacio was not completely defeated and was still considered a threat. Further, the revolt had spread to the surrounding provinces by the end of August.

Haring Bayang Katagalugan
Influenced by Freemasonry, the Katipunan had been organized with "its own laws, bureaucratic structure and elective leadership". For each province it involved, the Supreme Council coordinated provincial councils which were in charge of "public administration and military affairs on the supra-municipal or quasi-provincial level" and local councils, in charge of affairs "on the district or barrio level". In the last days of August, the Katipunan members met in Caloocan and decided to start their revolt (the event was later called the "Cry of Balintawak" or "Cry of Pugad Lawin"; the exact location and date are disputed). A day after the Cry, the Supreme Council was reorganized by Bonifacio with the following:

The above was divulged to the Spanish by the Katipunan member Pío Valenzuela while in captivity. Teodoro Agoncillo thus wrote:

Immediately before the outbreak of the revolution, therefore, Bonifacio organized the Katipunan into a government revolving around a ‘cabinet’ composed of men of his confidence.

Milagros C. Guerrero and others have described Bonifacio as "effectively" the commander-in-chief of the revolutionaries. They assert:

As commander-in-chief, Bonifacio supervised the planning of military strategies and the preparation of orders, manifests and decrees, adjudicated offenses against the nation, as well as mediated in political disputes. He directed generals and positioned troops in the fronts. On the basis of command responsibility, all victories and defeats all over the archipelago during his term of office should be attributed to Bonifacio. One name for Bonifacio's concept of the Philippine nation-state appears in surviving Katipunan documents: Haring Bayang Katagalugan ("Sovereign Nation of Katagalugan", or "Sovereign Tagalog Nation") – sometimes shortened into Haring Bayan ("Sovereign Nation"). Bayan may be rendered as "nation" or "people". Bonifacio is named as the president of the "Tagalog Republic" in an issue of the Spanish periodical La Ilustración Española y Americana published in February 1897 ("Andrés Bonifacio – Titulado "Presidente" de la República Tagala"). Another name for Bonifacio's government was Repúblika ng Katagalugan (another form of "Tagalog Republic") as evidenced by a picture of a rebel seal published in the same periodical the next month.

Official letters and one appointment paper of Bonifacio addressed to Emilio Jacinto reveal Bonifacio's various titles and designations, as follows:

 * President of the Supreme Council
 * Supreme President
 * President of the Sovereign Nation of Katagalugan / Sovereign Tagalog Nation
 * President of the Sovereign Nation, Founder of the Katipunan, Initiator of the Revolution
 * Office of the Supreme President, Government of the Revolution

Later, in November 1896, while encamped at Balara, Bonifacio commissioned Julio Nakpil to compose a national anthem. Nakpil produced a hymn called Marangal na Dalit ng Katagalugan ("Honorable Hymn of the Tagalog Nation/People").

Eventually, an 1897 power struggle in Cavite led to command of the revolution shifting to Emilio Aguinaldo at the Tejeros Convention, where a new government was formed. Bonifacio was executed after he refused to recognize the new government. The Aguinaldo-headed Philippine Republic (República Filipina), usually considered the "First Philippine Republic", was formally established in 1899, after a succession of revolutionary and dictatorial governments (e.g. the Tejeros government, the Biak-na-Bato Republic) also headed by Aguinaldo.

Campaigns around Manila
By December 1896, the Spanish government recognized three major centers of rebellion: Cavite (under Mariano Alvarez, Emilio Aguinaldo and others), Bulacan (under Mariano Llanera) and Morong (under Bonifacio). The revolt was most successful in Cavite, which mostly fell under rebel control by September–October 1896.

While Cavite is traditionally regarded as the "Heartland of the Philippine Revolution", Manila and its surrounding municipalities bore the brunt of the Spanish military campaign, becoming a no man's land. Rebels in the area were generally engaged in hit-and-run guerrilla warfare against Spanish positions in Manila, Morong, Nueva Ecija and Pampanga. From Morong, Bonifacio served as tactician for rebel guerrillas and issued commands to areas other than his personal sector, though his reputation suffered when he lost battles he personally led.

From September to October 1896, Bonifacio supervised the establishment of Katipunan mountain and hill bases like Balara in Mariquina, Pantayanin in Antipolo, Ugong in Pasig and Tungko in Bulacan. Bonifacio appointing generals for these areas, or approving selections the troops themselves made.

On November 7, 1896, Bonifacio led an assault on San Mateo, Mariquina and Montalban. The Spanish were forced to retreat, leaving these areas to the rebels, except for the municipal hall of San Mateo where some Spanish troops had barricaded. While Bonifacio's troops laid siege to the hall, other Katipunan forces set up defensive lines along the nearby Langka (or Nangka) river against Spanish reinforcements coming from the direction of Mariquina. After three days, Spanish counterattacks broke through the Nangka river lines. The Spanish troops thus recaptured the rebel positions and surprised Bonifacio in San Mateo, who ordered a general retreat to Balara. They were pursued, and Bonifacio was nearly killed shielding Emilio Jacinto from a Spanish bullet which grazed his collar.

Bonifacio in Cavite
In late 1896, Bonifacio, as the recognized overall leader of the revolution, was invited to Cavite province by rebel leaders to mediate between them and unify their efforts. There were two Katipunan provincial chapters in Cavite that became rival factions: the Magdalo, headed by Emilio Aguinaldo's cousin Baldomero Aguinaldo, and the Magdiwang, headed by Mariano Álvarez, uncle of Bonifacio's wife. Leaders of both factions came from the upper class, in contrast to Bonifacio, who came from the lower middle class. After initial successes, Emilio Aguinaldo issued a manifesto in the name of the Magdalo ruling council which proclaimed a provisional and revolutionary government – despite the existence of the Katipunan government. Emilio Aguinaldo in particular had won fame for victories in the province. The Magdalo and Magdiwang clashed over authority and jurisdiction and did not help each other in battle. After multiple letters were sent to Bonifacio urging him to come, in December 1896 he traveled to Cavite accompanied by his wife, his brothers Procopio and Ciriaco, and some troops, including Emilio Jacinto, Bonifacio's secretary and right-hand man. Jacinto was said to be against Bonifacio's expedition to Cavite. The Bonifacio brothers stayed in San Francisco de Malabon (present-day General Trias) during this time.

Upon his arrival at Cavite, friction grew between Bonifacio and the Magdalo leaders. Apolinario Mabini, who later served as Emilio Aguinaldo's adviser, writes that at this point the Magdalo leaders "already paid little heed to his authority and orders." Bonifacio was partial to the Magdiwang, perhaps due to his kinship ties with Mariano Álvarez, or more importantly, due to their stronger recognition of his authority. When Aguinaldo and Edilberto Evangelista went to receive Bonifacio at Zapote, they were irritated with what they regarded as his attitude of superiority. In his memoirs, Aguinaldo wrote that Bonifacio acted "as if he were a king". Another time, Bonifacio ordered the arrest of one Katipunan general from Laguna named Vicente Fernandez, who was accompanying the Magdalo leaders in paying their respects to Bonifacio, for failing to support his attack in Manila, but the other Magdalo leaders refused to surrender him. Townspeople in Noveleta (a Magdiwang town) acclaimed Bonifacio as the ruler of the Philippines, to the chagrin of the Magdalo leaders, (Bonifacio replied: "Long live Philippine liberty!"). Aguinaldo disputed with Bonifacio over strategic troop placements and blamed him for the capture of the town of Silang. The Spanish, through Jesuit Superior Pio Pi, wrote to Aguinaldo about the possibility of peace negotiations. When Bonifacio found out, he and the Magdiwang council rejected the proposed peace talks. Bonifacio was also angered that the Spanish considered Aguinaldo the "chief of the rebellion" instead of him. However, Aguinaldo continued to arrange negotiations which never took place. Bonifacio believed Aguinaldo was willing to surrender the revolution.

Bonifacio was also subject to rumors that he had stolen Katipunan funds, his sister was the mistress of a priest, and he was an agent provocateur paid by friars to foment unrest. Also circulated were anonymous letters which told the people of Cavite not to idolize Bonifacio because he was a Mason, a mere Manila employee, allegedly an atheist, and uneducated. According to these letters, Bonifacio did not deserve the title of Supremo since only God was supreme. This last allegation was made despite the fact that Supremo was meant to be used in conjunction with Presidente, i.e. Presidente Supremo (Supreme President, Kataas-taasang Pangulo) to distinguish the president of the Katipunan Supreme Council from council presidents of subordinate Katipunan chapters like the Magdalo and Magdiwang; in other words, while Mariano Álvarez was the Magdiwang president, and Baldomero Aguinaldo was the Magdalo president, Bonifacio was the Supreme President. Bonifacio suspected the rumor-mongering to be the work of the Magdalo leader Daniel Tirona. He confronted Tirona, whose airy reply provoked Bonifacio to such anger that he drew a gun and would have shot Tirona if others had not intervened.

On December 31, Bonifacio and the Magdalo and Magdiwang leaders held a meeting in Imus, ostensibly to determine the leadership of Cavite in order to end the rivalry between the two factions. The issue of whether the Katipunan should be replaced by a revolutionary government was brought up by the Magdalo, and this eclipsed the rivalry issue. The Magdalo argued that the Katipunan, as a secret society, should have ceased to exist once the Revolution was underway. They also held that Cavite should not be divided. Bonifacio and the Magdiwang contended that the Katipunan served as their revolutionary government since it had its own constitution, laws, and provincial and municipal governments. Edilberto Evangelista presented a draft constitution for the proposed government to Bonifacio but he rejected it as it was too similar to the Spanish Maura Law. Upon the event of restructuring, Bonifacio was given carte blanche to appoint a committee tasked with setting up a new government; he would also be in charge of this committee. He tasked Emilio Aguinaldo to record the minutes of the meeting and requested for it to establish this authority, but these were never done and never provided.

The Tejeros Convention
On March 22, 1897, the revolutionary leaders held an important meeting in a Friar Estate Residence at Tejeros to resume their discussions regarding the escalating tension between the Magdalo and Magdiwang forces; And also to settle once-and-for-all the issue of governance within the Katipunan through an election. Amidst implications on whether the government of the "Katipunan" should be established as a monarchy or as a republic, Bonifacio maintained that it should be established as a republic. According to him, they were all in opposition to the King of Spain, and all of the government's members of any given rank should serve under the principle of liberty, equality, and fraternity, upon which republicanism was founded. Despite Bonifacio's concern on the lack of officials and representatives from other provinces, he was obliged to proceed with the election.

Before the election began, he asked that the results be respected by everyone, and all agreed. The Magdalo faction voted their own Emilio Aguinaldo President in absentia, as he was involved in the battle of Perez Dasmariñas, which was then ongoing. The resulting revolutionary government established at Tejeros, calling itself the Republica de Filipinas (Republic of the Philippines) around a month later, was later superseded by a number of reorganized revolutionary governments also headed by Aguinaldo. These included the Republica de Filipinas of November 1897, commonly known today as the "Republic of Biak-na-Bato", the Hong Kong Junta government-in-exile, the dictatorial government under which Philippine independence was proclaimed on June 12, 1898, and the revolutionary government now commonly known as the First Philippine Republic or "Malolos Republic", inaugurated on January 23, 1899 as the Republica Filipina (Philippine Republic). The 1899 government is now officially considered to be the true "first" Republic of the Philippines, with the present-day government of the Philippines thus being the "fifth" Republic.

Bonifacio received the second-highest number of votes for president. Though it was suggested that he be automatically be awarded the Vice Presidency, no one seconded the motion and the Election continued. Mariano Trías of the Magdiwang was elected vice president. Bonifacio was the last to be elected, as Director of the Interior. Daniel Tirona, protested Bonifacio being appointed as Director of the Interior on the grounds that the position should not be occupied by a person without a lawyer's diploma. Tirona suggested a prominent lawyer for the position such as Jose del Rosario. Insulted and angered, Bonifacio demanded an apology, since the voters had agreed to respect the election results. Tirona ignored Bonifacio's demand for apology which drove Bonifacio to draw his gun and again he nearly shot Tirona, who hid among the people, but he was restrained by Artemio Ricarte of the Magdiwang, who had been elected Captain-General. Bonifacio declared: "In my capacity as chairman of this convention, and as Presidente Supremo of the Most Venerable Katipunan of the Sons of the People, which association is known and acknowledged by all, I hereby declare null and void all matters approved in this meeting." He then promptly left the premises.

Repudiation of Tejeros election results
On March 23, 1897, the day after the Tejeros convention, Aguinaldo surreptitiously took his oath of office as president in a chapel officiated by a Catholic priest Cenon Villafranca who was under the authority of the Pope in Rome. According to Gen. Santiago Alvarez, guards were posted outside with strict instructions not to let in any unwanted partisan from the Magdiwang faction while the oath-taking took place. Artemio Ricarte also took his office "with great reluctance" and made a declaration that he found the Tejeros elections "dirty or shady" and "not been in conformity with the true will of the people."

Meanwhile, Bonifacio met with his remaining supporters and drew up the Acta de Tejeros, wherein they gave their reasons for not accepting the election results. Bonifacio alleged the election was fraudulent due to cheating and accused Aguinaldo of treason for his negotiations with the Spanish. In their memoirs Santiago Álvarez (son of Mariano) and Gregoria de Jesús both alleged that many ballots were already filled out before being distributed, and Guillermo Masangkay contended there were more ballots prepared than voters present. Álvarez writes that Bonifacio had been warned by a Cavite leader Diego Mojica of the rigged ballots before the votes were canvassed, but he had done nothing. The Acta de Tejeros was signed by Bonifacio and 44 others, including Artemio Ricarte, Mariano Alvarez and Pascual Alvarez. Then, in a later meeting on April 19 in Naic, another document, the Naic Military Agreement, was drawn up which declared that its 41 signatories, "... having discovered the treason committed by certain officers who have been sowing discord and conniving with the Spaniards [and other offensive acts]", had "agreed to deliver the people from this grave danger" by raising an army corps "by persuasion or force" under the command of General Pio del Pilar. The document's 41 signatories included Bonifacio, Ricarte and del Pilar. The meeting was interrupted by Aguinaldo and del Pilar. Mariano Noriel and others present then promptly returned to Aguinaldo's fold. Aguinaldo attempted to persuade Bonifacio to cooperate with his government, but Bonifacio refused and proceeded to Indang, Cavite planning to get out of Cavite and proceed back to Morong.

Arrest, trial and execution
In late April, Aguinaldo fully assumed the presidential office after consolidating his position among the Cavite elite – most of Bonifacio's Magdiwang supporters shifting allegiance to Aguinaldo. Aguinaldo's government then ordered the arrest of Bonifacio, who was then moving out of Cavite.

In April 1897, Aguinaldo ordered the arrest of Bonifacio after he received a letter that Bonifacio had burned down a village and ordered the burning of the parish house and church of Indang when the townspeople were unable to provide the required supplies and provisions. Many of the principal men of Indang, among them Severino de las Alas (a loyalist and supporter of Bonifacio), presented Emilio Aguinaldo with several complaints against Bonifacio that the Supremo's men stole carabaos and other work animals by force and butchered them for food. On April 25, a party of Aguinaldo's men led by Colonel Agapito Bonzón and Major José Ignacio "Intsik" Paua caught up with Bonifacio at his camp in barrio Limbon, Indang. The unsuspecting Bonifacio received them cordially. Early the next day, Bonzón and Paua attacked Bonifacio's camp. Bonifacio was surprised and refused to fight against "fellow Tagalogs", ordering his men to hold their fire, but shots were nevertheless exchanged. Bonifacio was shot in the arm by Bonzón, and Paua stabbed him in the neck but was prevented from striking further by one of Bonifacio's men, who offered to die in Bonifacio's place. Andrés's brother Ciriaco was shot dead, while his other brother Procopio was beaten, and his wife Gregoria may have been raped by Bonzón. From Indang, a half-starved and wounded Bonifacio was carried by hammock to Naic, which had become President Aguinaldo's headquarters.

Bonifacio's party was brought to Naic initially and then to Maragondon, Cavite, where he and Procopio stood trial on May 5, 1897, on charges of sedition and treason against Aguinaldo's government and conspiracy to murder Aguinaldo. The jury was composed entirely of Aguinaldo's men and even Bonifacio's defence lawyer himself declared his client's guilt. Bonifacio was barred from confronting the state witness on the charge of conspiracy to murder on the grounds that the latter had been killed in battle. However, after the trial the witness was seen alive with the prosecutors.

The Bonifacio brothers were found guilty, despite insufficient evidence, and were recommended to be executed. Aguinaldo commuted the sentence to deportation on May 8, 1897, but Pío del Pilar and Mariano Noriel persuaded him to withdraw the order for the sake of preserving unity. In this they were seconded by Mamerto Natividád and other bona fide supporters of Aguinaldo. The Bonifacio brothers were executed on May 10, 1897, in the mountains of Maragondon. Apolinario Mabini wrote that Bonifacio's death demoralized many rebels from Manila, Laguna and Batangas who had come to help those in Cavite, and caused them to quit. In other areas, Bonifacio's close associates like Emilio Jacinto and Macario Sakay continued the Katipunan and never recognized Aguinaldo's authority.

Historical controversies
The historical assessment of Bonifacio involves several controversial points. His death is alternately viewed as a justified execution for treason, and a "legal murder" fueled by politics. Some historians consider him to be the rightful first President of the Philippines instead of Aguinaldo. Some historians have also advocated that Bonifacio share or even take the place of José Rizal as the (foremost) Philippine national hero. The purported discovery of Bonifacio's remains has also been questioned.

Trial and sentencing
Historians have condemned the trial of the Bonifacio brothers as unjust. The jury was entirely composed of Aguinaldo's men; Bonifacio's defense lawyer acted more like a prosecutor as he himself declared Bonifacio's guilt and instead appealed for less punishment; and Bonifacio was not allowed to confront the state witness for the charge of conspiracy on the grounds that the latter had been killed in battle, but later the witness was seen with the prosecutors.

Teodoro Agoncillo writes that Bonifacio's declaration of authority in opposition to Aguinaldo posed a danger to the revolution, because a split in the rebel forces would result in almost certain defeat by their united and well-armed Spanish foe. In contrast, Renato Constantino contends that Bonifacio was neither a danger to the revolution in general for he still planned to fight the Spanish, nor to the revolution in Cavite since he was leaving; but Bonifacio was definitely a threat to the Cavite leaders who wanted control of the Revolution, so he was eliminated. Constantino contrasts Bonifacio who had no record of compromise with the Spanish with the Cavite leaders who did compromise, resulting in the Pact of Biak-na-Bato whereas the revolution was officially halted and its leaders exiled, though many Filipinos continued to fight, especially Katipunan leaders who used to be close to Bonifacio. (Aguinaldo, unofficially allied with the United States, eventually did return to take charge of the revolution during the Spanish–American War.)

Historians have also discussed the motives of the Cavite government to replace Bonifacio, and whether it had the right to do so. The Magdalo provincial council which helped establish a republican government led by one of their own was only one of many such councils in the pre-existing Katipunan government. Therefore, Constantino and Alejo Villanueva write that Aguinaldo and his faction may be considered counter-revolutionary as well – as guilty of violating Bonifacio's constituted authority just as they considered Bonifacio to violate theirs. Aguinaldo's own adviser and official Apolinario Mabini writes that he was "primarily answerable for insubordination against the head of the Katipunan of which he was a member". Aguinaldo's authority was not immediately recognized by all rebels. If Bonifacio had escaped Cavite, he would have had the right as the Katipunan leader to prosecute Aguinaldo for treason instead of the other way around. Constantino and Villanueva also interpret the Tejeros Convention as the culmination of a movement by members of the upper class represented by Aguinaldo to wrest power from Bonifacio who represented the middle and lower classes. Regionalism among the Cavite rebels, dubbed "Cavitismo" by Constantino, has also been put forward as motivation for the replacement of Bonifacio. Mabini considered the execution as criminal and "assassination...the first victory of personal ambition over true patriotism." He also noted that "All the electors [at the Tejeros Convention] were friends of Don Emilio Aguinaldo and Don Mariano Trías, who were united, while Bonifacio, although he had established his integrity, was looked upon with distrust only because he was not a native of the province: this explains his resentment."

Writing retrospectively in 1948, Aguinaldo explained that he initially commuted the sentence of death but rescinded his commutation from the pressure of the Consejo dela Guerra (Council of War) including Generals Mariano Noriel, Pio del Pilar, Severino de las Alas, all of which are supporters and loyalist of Bonifacio, among with General Mamerto Natividad, Sr. Anastacio Francisco together with the poet and historian Jose Clemente Zulueta among many others

Execution
There are differing accounts of Bonifacio's manner of execution. The commanding officer of the execution party, Lazaro Macapagal, said in two separate accounts that the Bonifacio brothers were shot to death, which is the orthodox interpretation. Macapagal's second account has Bonifacio attempting to escape after his brother is shot, but he is also killed while running away. Macapagal writes that they buried the brothers in shallow graves dug with bayonets and marked by twigs.

However, another account states that after his brother was shot, Bonifacio was stabbed and hacked to death. This was allegedly done while he lay prone in a hammock in which he was carried to the site, being too weak to walk. This version was maintained by Guillermo Masangkay, who claimed to have gotten this information from one of Macapagal's men. Also, one account used to corroborate this version is of an alleged eyewitness, a farmer who claimed he saw five men hacking a man in a hammock. Historian Milagros Guerrero also says Bonifacio was bayoneted, and that the brothers were left unburied. After bones said to be Bonifacio's – including a fractured skull – were discovered in 1918, Masangkay claimed the forensic evidence supported his version of events. Writer Adrian Cristobal notes that accounts of Bonifacio's captivity and trial state he was very weak due to his wounds being left untreated; he thus doubts that Bonifacio was strong enough to make a last dash for freedom as Macapagal claimed. Historian Ambeth Ocampo, who doubts the Bonifacio bones were authentic, thus also doubts the possibility of Bonifacio's death by this manner.

Bonifacio as first President of the Republic of the Philippines
Some historians such as Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnación, Ramón Villegas and Michael Charleston Chua have pushed for the recognition of Bonifacio as the first President of the Philippines instead of Aguinaldo, the officially recognized one. This view emphasizes that Bonifacio was not just the leader of the Katipunan as a revolutionary secret society, as traditional historiography has emphasized, but that he also established and headed a revolutionary government through the Katipunan from 1896 to 1897, before a revolutionary government headed by Aguinaldo was first formed at the Tejeros Convention. Guerrero writes that Bonifacio had a concept of the Philippine nation called Haring Bayang Katagalugan ("Sovereign Tagalog Nation") which was displaced by Aguinaldo's concept of Filipinas. In documents predating Tejeros and the First Philippine Republic of 1899, Bonifacio is called the president of the "Sovereign [Tagalog] Nation" and the "Tagalog Republic".

The term Tagalog historically refers to an ethnic group, their language, and script. Historians have thus viewed Bonifacio's concept of the Philippine nation as restricted to the Tagalog-speaking regions of Luzon, as compared to Aguinaldo's view of Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao (comprising the modern Philippines). In their memoirs, Emilio Aguinaldo and other Magdalo people claim Bonifacio became the head of the Magdiwang, receiving the title Harì ng Bayan ("King of the Nation") with Mariano Álvarez as his second-in-command. Historians such as Carlos Quirino and Michael Charleston Chua suggest these claims stem from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Bonifacio's neologism Haring Bayan ("Sovereign Nation") as referring to Bonifacio himself instead of his concept of the nation, as was in truth reflected in his title Pangulo ng Haring Bayang Katagalugan ("President of the Sovereign Tagalog Nation"), sometimes shortened to Pangulo ng Haring Bayan ("President of the Sovereign Nation"). Santiago Álvarez (son of Mariano) distinguishes between the Magdiwang government and the Katipunan Supreme Council headed by Bonifacio.

According to historian Chua, the "first President" issue has been confounded by over a century of Philippine historiography most often referring to Bonifacio as "The Supremo" and taking it to mean "The Supreme Leader", thus ultimately taking him to have had dictatorial or monarchist ambitions as opposed to the later democratic and republican Philippine Presidents, when in fact "Supremo" was only a contraction of Spanish Presidente Supremo - a translation of Bonifacio's actual title as head of the Katipunan in Tagalog, Kataas-taasang Pangulo (Supreme President) - and based on surviving documents, Bonifacio generally did not call himself by the plain term "Supremo" despite other people's usage, but instead styled himself "Pangulo", i.e. President. Chua further writes:

"...even inside the Katipunan, Bonifacio struggled to make people understand his concept of the Haring Bayan not as an individual or a King, but as something else... Haring Bayan really meant the King, or the power, is the people (Haring Bayan), which is basically 'The Sovereign Nation'... So when he signed himself as Pangulo ng Haring Bayan past 24 August 1896, that means he intended to be president of a national revolutionary government which aimed to be a democracy."

Bonifacio as national hero
José Rizal is generally considered the foremost of the national heroes of the Philippines and often "the" national hero, albeit not in law, but Bonifacio has been suggested as a more worthy candidate on the grounds of having started the Philippine Revolution. Teodoro Agoncillo notes that the Philippine national hero, unlike those of other countries, is not "the leader of its liberation forces". Renato Constantino writes that Rizal is a "United States-sponsored hero" who was promoted as the greatest Filipino hero during the American Occupation period of the Philippines – after Aguinaldo lost the Philippine–American War. The United States promoted Rizal, who was taken to represent peaceful political advocacy, instead of more radical figures whose ideas could inspire resistance against American rule. Specifically, Rizal was selected over Bonifacio who was viewed as "too radical" and Apolinario Mabini who was "unregenerate."

Historian Ambeth Ocampo gives the opinion that arguing for Bonifacio as the "better" hero on the grounds that he, not Rizal, began the Philippine Revolution, is moot since Rizal inspired Bonifacio, the Katipunan, and the Revolution. Even prior to his banishment to Dapitan, Rizal was already regarded by the Filipino people as a national hero, having been elected as honorary president by the Katipunan. Other historians also detail that Bonifacio was a follower of Rizal's La Liga Filipina. León María Guerrero notes that while Rizal did not give his blessing to the Katipunan because he believed the time was premature, he did not condemn the aim of independence per se. Teodoro Agoncillo gives the opinion that Bonifacio should not replace Rizal as national hero, but they should be honored "side by side".

Despite popular recognition of Rizal as "the Philippine national hero", the title itself has no explicit legal definition in present Philippine law. Rizal and Bonifacio, however, are given the implied recognition of being national heroes because they are commemorated annually nationwide – Rizal Day on December 30 and Bonifacio Day on November 30. According to the website of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts: Despite the lack of any official declaration explicitly proclaiming them as national heroes, [Rizal and Bonifacio] remain admired and revered for their roles in Philippine history. Heroes, according to historians, should not be legislated.

Their appreciation should be better left to academics. Acclamation for heroes, they felt, would be recognition enough.

Bonifacio's bones
In 1918, the American occupational government of the Philippines mounted a search for Bonifacio's remains in Maragondon. A group consisting of government officials, former rebels, and a man reputed to be Bonifacio's servant found bones which they claimed were Bonifacio's in a sugarcane field on March 17. The bones were placed in an urn and put into the care of the National Library of the Philippines. They were housed at the Library's headquarters in the Legislative Building in Ermita, Manila, together with some of Bonifacio's papers and personal belongings. The authenticity of the bones was much disputed at the time and has been challenged as late as 2001 by Ambeth Ocampo. When Emilio Aguinaldo ran for President of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935, his opponent Manuel L. Quezon (the eventual victor) invoked the memory of Bonifacio against him, the bones being the result of Bonifacio's execution by the judiciary branch of the revolutionary government headed by Aguinaldo. During World War II, the Philippines was invaded by Japan beginning on December 8, 1941. The bones were lost due to the widespread destruction and looting during the Allied capture of Manila in February 1945.

Portrayal in the media

 * Portrayed by Eddie del Mar in the film Andres Bonifacio (Ang Supremo) (1964)
 * Portrayed by Julio Diaz in the film Bayani (1992) and the unrelated TV series Bayani (1995).
 * Portrayal by Rody Vera in the musical 1896 (1995) produced by Philippine Educational Theater Association.
 * Portrayed by Gardo Versoza in the film José Rizal (1998).
 * Portrayed by Alfred Vargas in the film The Trial of Andres Bonifacio (2010) and in the film Supremo (2012).
 * Portrayed by Mark Anthony Fernandez in GMA Lupang Hinirang music video in 2010
 * Portrayed by Cesar Montano in the film El Presidente (2012).
 * Portrayed by Jolo Revilla in the TV series Indio (2013).
 * Portrayed by Sid Lucero in the TV series Katipunan (2013) and Ilustrado (2014).
 * Portrayed by Robin Padilla in the film Bonifacio: Ang Unang Pangulo (2014).
 * Portrayed by Nico Antonio in the film Heneral Luna (2015).
 * Portrayed by Jhong Hilario in the film Unli Life (2018).
 * Portrayed by Eric David in the film The Ret. Col. Rodrigo Bonifacio Story (2021).
 * Portrayed by Bullet Dumas in the musical 2Bayani: Isang Rock Operang Alay Kay Andres Bonifacio (2021) produced by Tanghalang Ateneo.
 * Portrayed by Gary Guarino in the film GomBurZa (2023).
 * Portrayed by Paw Castillio in the musical Pingkian: Isang Musika (2024) produced by Tanghalang Pilipino.

title: Andrés Bonifacio


text:
Michael Powell

Michael Latham Powell (30 September 1905 – 19 February 1990) was an English filmmaker, celebrated for his partnership with Emeric Pressburger. Through their production company The Archers, they together wrote, produced and directed a series of classic British films, notably The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943), A Canterbury Tale (1944), I Know Where I'm Going! (1945), A Matter of Life and Death (1946, also called Stairway to Heaven), Black Narcissus (1947), The Red Shoes (1948), and The Tales of Hoffmann (1951).

His controversial 1960 film Peeping Tom, which was so vilified on first release that it seriously damaged his career, is now considered a classic and a contender for the first "slasher movie". Many renowned filmmakers, such as Francis Ford Coppola, George A. Romero and Martin Scorsese have cited Powell as an influence.

In 1981, he received the BAFTA Fellowship along with his partner Pressburger, the highest honour the British Academy of Film and Television Arts can bestow upon a filmmaker.

Early life
Powell was the second son and youngest child of Thomas William Powell, a hop farmer, and Mabel, daughter of Frederick Corbett, of Worcester, England. Powell was born in Bekesbourne, Kent, and educated at The King's School, Canterbury and then at Dulwich College. He started work at the National Provincial Bank in 1922 but quickly realised he was not cut out to be a banker.

Film career
Powell entered the film industry in 1925 through working with director Rex Ingram at the Victorine Studios in Nice, France (the contact with Ingram was made through Powell's father, who owned a hotel in Nice). He first started out as a general studio hand, the proverbial "gofer": sweeping the floor, making coffee, fetching and carrying. Soon he progressed to other work such as stills photography, writing titles (for the silent films) and many other jobs including a few acting roles, usually as comic characters. Powell made his film début as a "comic English tourist" in The Magician (1926).

Returning to England in 1928, Powell worked at a diverse series of jobs for various filmmakers including as a stills photographer on Alfred Hitchcock's silent film Champagne (1928). He also signed on in a similar role on Hitchcock's first "talkie", Blackmail (1929). In his autobiography, Powell claims he suggested the ending in the British Museum which was the first of Hitchcock's "monumental" climaxes to his films. Powell and Hitchcock remained friends for the remainder of Hitchcock's life.

After scriptwriting on two productions, Powell entered into a partnership with American producer Jerry Jackson in 1931 to make "quota quickies", hour-long films needed to satisfy a legal requirement that British cinemas screen a certain quota of British films. During this period, he developed his directing skills, sometimes making up to seven films a year.

Although he had taken on some directing responsibilities in other films, Powell had his first screen credit as a director on Two Crowded Hours (1931). This thriller was considered a modest success at the box office despite its limited budget. From 1931 to 1936, Powell was the director of 23 films, including the critically received Red Ensign (1934) and The Phantom Light (1935).

In 1937 Powell completed his first truly personal project, The Edge of the World. Powell gathered together a cast and crew who were willing to take part in an expedition to what was then a very isolated part of the UK. They had to stay there for quite a few months and finished up with a film which not only told the story he wanted but also captured the raw natural beauty of the location.

By 1939, Powell had been hired as a contract director by Alexander Korda on the strength of The Edge of the World. Korda set him to work on some projects such as Burmese Silver that were subsequently cancelled. Nonetheless, Powell was brought in to save a film that was being made as a vehicle for two of Korda's star players, Conrad Veidt and Valerie Hobson. The film was The Spy in Black, where Powell first met Emeric Pressburger in 1939.

Meeting Emeric Pressburger
The original script of The Spy in Black followed the book quite closely, but was too verbose and did not have a good role for either Veidt or Hobson. Korda called a meeting where he introduced a diminutive man, saying, "Well now, I have asked Emeric to read the script, and he has things to say to us."

Powell then went on to record (in A Life in Movies) how: "'Emeric produced a very small piece of rolled-up paper, and addressed the meeting. I listened spellbound. Since talkies took over the movies, I had worked with some good writers, but I had never met anything like this. In the silent days, the top [American] screenwriters were technicians rather than dramatists ... the European cinema remained highly literate and each country, conscious of its separate culture and literature, strove to outdo the other. All this was changed by the talkies. America, with its enormous wealth and enthusiasm and it technical resources, waved the big stick. ... The European film no longer existed. ... Only the great German film business was prepared to fight the American monopoly, and Dr. Goebbels soon put a stop to that in 1933. But the day that Emeric walked out of his flat, leaving the key in the door to save the storm-troopers the trouble of breaking it down, was the worst day's work that the clever doctor ever did for his country's reputation, as he was soon to find out. As I said, I listened spellbound to this small Hungarian wizard, as Emeric unfolded his notes, until they were at least six inches long. He had stood Storer Clouston's plot on its head and completely restructured the film.'"

They both soon recognised that although they were total opposites in background and personality, they had a common attitude to film-making and that they could work very well together. After making two more films together, Contraband (1940) and 49th Parallel (1941), with separate credits, the pair decided to form a partnership and to sign their films jointly as "Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger."

The Archers
Working together as co-producers, writers and directors in a partnership they dubbed "The Archers", they made 19 feature films, many of which received critical and commercial success. Their best films are still regarded as classics of 20th century British cinema. The BFI 100 list of "the favourite British films of the 20th century" contains five of Powell's films, four with Pressburger.

Although admirers would argue that Powell ought to rank alongside fellow British directors Alfred Hitchcock and David Lean, his career suffered a severe reversal after the release of the controversial psychological thriller film Peeping Tom, made in 1960 as a solo effort. The film was excoriated by mainstream British critics, who were offended by its sexual and violent images; Powell was ostracized by the film industry and found it almost impossible to work thereafter.

The film did, however, meet with the rapturous approval of the young critics of Positif and Midi-Minuit Fantastique in France, and those of Motion in England, and in 1965 he was subject of a major positive revaluation by Raymond Durgnat in the auteurist magazine Movie, later included in Durgnat's influential book A Mirror for England.

Powell's films came to have a cult reputation, broadened during the 1970s and early 1980s by a series of retrospectives and rediscoveries, as well as further articles and books. By the time of his death, he and Pressburger were recognised as one of the foremost film partnerships of all time – and cited as a key influence by many noted filmmakers such as Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma, and Francis Ford Coppola.

Personal life
In 1927 Powell married Gloria Mary Rouger, an American dancer; they were married in France and stayed together for only three weeks. During the 1940s, Powell had love affairs with actresses Deborah Kerr, Kathleen Byron and allegedly Wendy Hiller also. From 1 July 1943 until her death on 5 July 1983, Powell was married to Frances "Frankie" May Reidy, the daughter of medical practitioner Jerome Reidy; they had two sons: Kevin Michael Powell (b. 1945) and Columba Jerome Reidy Powell (b. 1951). He also lived with actress Pamela Brown for many years until her death from cancer in 1975. Subsequently, Powell was married to film editor Thelma Schoonmaker from 19 May 1984 until his own death from cancer on 19 February 1990 at his home in Avening, Gloucestershire.

His niece was the Australian actress Cornelia Frances, who appeared in bit parts in her uncle's early films.

Preservation
The Academy Film Archive has preserved A Matter of Life and Death and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.

Awards, nominations and honours

 * 1943: Oscar nominated for 49th Parallel as Best Picture
 * 1943: Oscar nominated for One of Our Aircraft Is Missing for Best Writing, Original Screenplay. Shared with Emeric Pressburger
 * 1948: Won Danish Bodil Award for A Matter of Life and Death as Best European Film. Shared with Emeric Pressburger
 * 1948 Nominated for The Red Shoes for Venice Film Festival Golden Lion.  Shared with Emeric Pressburger
 * 1949: Oscar nominated for The Red Shoes as Best Picture. Shared with Emeric Pressburger
 * 1951: Cannes Film Festival nominated for The Tales of Hoffmann for Grand Prize of the Festival. Shared with Emeric Pressburger
 * 1951: Won Silver Bear from 1st Berlin International Film Festival for The Tales of Hoffmann as Best Musical. Shared with Emeric Pressburger
 * 1957: BAFTA Award nominated for The Battle of the River Plate as Best British Screenplay. Shared with Emeric Pressburger.
 * 1959: Cannes Film Festival won the Technical Grand Prize for Luna de Miel. Nominated for Golden Palm.
 * 1978: Awarded Hon DLitt, University of East Anglia
 * 1978: Awarded Hon DLitt, University of Kent
 * 1981: Made fellow of BAFTA
 * 1982: Awarded Career Gold Lion from the Venice Film Festival
 * 1983: Made fellow of the British Film Institute (BFI)
 * 1987: Awarded Hon Doctorate, Royal College of Art
 * 1987: Awarded Akira Kurosawa Award from San Francisco International Film Festival
 * 2014: An English Heritage Blue plaque to commemorate Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger was unveiled on 17 February 2014 by Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker at Dorset House, Gloucester Place, London NW1 5AG where The Archers had their offices from 1942 to 1947.

Legacy

 * Cited as a major influence on many film-makers such as Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, George A. Romero and Bertrand Tavernier. Said Thelma Schoonmaker (Scorsese's long-time film editor and Powell's third wife) of Scorsese, "Anyone he meets, or the actors he works with, he immediately starts bombarding with Powell and Pressburger movies." Scorsese and Schoonmaker are working on restoring Powell's films, beginning with The Red Shoes and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp.
 * The Michael Powell Award for the Best New British Feature was instigated in 1993 at the Edinburgh International Film Festival (awarded 1993-2010 and 2012-2021). It was sponsored by the UK Film Council and was "named in homage to one of Britain's most original filmmakers".
 * Pinewood Studios, where Powell made many of his most notable films, has named a mixing theatre in the post-production department after him: The Powell Theatre. A giant picture of the director covers the door to the theatre, where many well-known films are mixed.
 * The Film, Radio and Television Department of Canterbury Christ Church University has its main building named after him: The Powell Building.
 * He has been played on screen by Alastair Thomson Mills in the award-winning short film Òran na h-Eala (2022) which explores Moira Shearer's life changing decision to appear in The Red Shoes.
 * A celebration entitled 'Cinema Unbound: The Creative Worlds of Powell and Pressburger' was held by the British Film Institute in 2023, including a UK-wide programme of films and an exhibit of production and promotion materials from The Red Shoes.
 * Powell's work was explored in the documentary Made in England: The Films of Powell and Pressburger (2024), with narration by Martin Scorsese.

Theatre

 * 1944: Directed Ernest Hemingway's The Fifth Column at the Theatre Royal, Glasgow
 * 1944: Directed Jan de Hartog's Skipper Next To God at the Theatre Royal, Windsor
 * 1951: Directed James Forsyth's Heloise at the Golders Green Hippodrome, London
 * 1952: Directed Raymond Massey's The Hanging Judge at the New Theatre, London

title: Michael Powell