Talk:Hukbalahap

message: I see that debate about the article's apparent pro-Communist stance has gone on for a while.  I don't know anything about this subject, but some of you do; please, could someone try to rewrite it in something approaching a neutral, encyclopedic voice? atakdoug (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still POV 

message: No mentioning of Edward Lansdale's role. Little more is needed to be added. His role in the Magsaysay government is pertinent given the fact that he tried the same with Ngo Dinh Diem in Viet-Nam. Also, there is no inclusion of Luis Taruc's works which is exigent for an unbiased dissemination of the facts leading toward a more truthful interpretation. Especially when Taruc gives his own reasons for the Huk downfall which at least needs to be refuted in order to sustain American claims of successful counterinsurgency. If the U.S. WAS successful because of successful counterinsurgency by Lansdale and Magsaysay, what happened in Viet-Nam, Nicaragua, and now in Iraq. As Acknowledged by the military now including Patraeus in Iraq, the success of Iraq is that we are actually taking counterinsurgency seriously, which we didnt do before. This gives more credit to claims by Taruc for the determinants of the downfall of the Huk. The Philippines example under the rubric of successful U.S. counterinsurgency sounds more like "we won because we are the best" and we will "never admit defeat" just like the "honorable retreat" in the media when the Chinese forced us from the Yalu back across the parallel in Korea during the Korean War. What is an honorable retreat? What was so successful about U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in the Philippines which failed in Viet-Nam?
07:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some info is available in . -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  additions 

message: I wouldn't mind helping you. I have many declassified U.S. documents and other secondary sources. There are problems with this article given that there is no mention of the fact that the Philippines military under Magsaysay and previous administrations committed atrocities outnumbering those of the Huks. Luis Taruc was elected in office, refused to be seated, his friend was assassinated, then he took to the hills to fight. Moreover, no mention of the fact that the U.S. put in power pro-Japanese collaborators after the war which upset many of the people. These are serious issues neglected in this article that need investigating to uphold the quality of Wikipedia.
[Was the name of Taruc's assasssinated friend Ricardo DeBlois? The man killed on the steps of the capital building by the police?]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.144.38 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some info about WW-II Japanese collaborators being returned to office is available in .  The book sometimes shows POV and selective omission of information, though. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  more additions 

message: I don't see anything pro-communist in this article. I am not an amateur historian, but a professional one within academia. I haven't seen anything scarcely relating to Marx, Engels, or Lenin in this article. Be careful of the Pro-Communist word, it carries the same inherit discriminatory meaning as racial slurs. It is meant at times to disregard the argument all together without examination because it has been labeled "pro-communist" as racial slurs were used to disregard the humanity of an individual rather than observe the content of the former and latter. As long as INTERPRETATION is supported by facts and logic, then all other complaints dally around the realm of biased pre-disposition. Like a mirror topoi, writing history is a reflection of who you are, if people think you are ugly, do they expect you to kill yourself or hide from everyone? Moreover, how about popularizing the charge the article is pro-capitalist :)
Nationalism has taught discrimination and falsehoods. Moreover it has altered reality into a realm of fantasy which others are willing to die for :( How absurd we have become as human beings capable of THINKING!!
07:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-communist 

message: I think the Hukbalahap and Hukbalahap Rebellion articles talks about one subject and should be merged. -- Kleomarlo (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Someone recently added "()" to the article. Could someone please add an English translation of that? Google translates it to "Troops Against Town of Japan", but I'm guessing that a better translation is possible. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nation's Army Against the Japanese" is a closer translation. --Quess QR (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: I see that several time already other editors have commented that this article should merge with Hukbalahap Rebellion but as far as I know nobody has formally proposed it.  So I'm proposing that as this seems generally more tightly written, with a better reference structure, material from Hukbalahap Rebellion should be merged into this article.  I'd welcome other views.Mccapra (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against it. The Huk Rebellion is in itself a broad topic that covers 6 to 7 years, and three presidential administrations. There is still a lot to be discussed about the Huks outside their post-war rebellion, such as organization, affiliations with the left, their activities during the Second World War, etc. etc. It would be better if the rebellion was touched briefly here, but the main bulk of the topic be in a different article. NyanThousand (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger