Talk:New People's Army rebellion/Archive 1
 | This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This is an archive of past discussions about New People's Army rebellion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
File:Communisthukrebel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Communisthukrebel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
The Insurgency is not decreasing
There's a line in this article that suggests that the insurgency has become less powerful. While it's true that it was significantly weakened in 2010, in many ways it has rebounded. For example, the NPA has increase the amount of fronts it has and has captured about 300 high powered rifles from enemy targets. While very little information can be gathered since most of it comes from either the military or the rebel group, I think it's fair to say that it has maintained a stalemate. Onthehook (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh and I apologize for not signing, I only realized that I didn't sign after I edited the article.
- I think that mentioning military and rebel sources would be fair, even though neither is WP:Third party. That said the phrase "decreasing" is a wp:weasel word because it is unclear what the time period is. The insurgency is clearly weaker than it was in the 1980s. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Page title
I think that the current page title "Communist insurgency in the Philippines" is the best. It is keeping with wp:CommonName since most call it a "communist insurgency" and not "insurgency of the communist party". Further not all armed communist groups are under the Communist party. Some have broken away and even signed a peace agreement with government. see [1] --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- User:Iloilo Wanderer and all interested parties: From a historical perspective I have major problems with this article continuing to be named "Communist rebellion in the Philippines," since that sidelines some significant movements, notably the PKP-1930, the CPLA, and the ABB-RPA. It also effectively sidelines Marxist-Leninist history in favor of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist history. This is why this insurgency is so poorly understood by the public. My proposal is that this article be renamed "CPP-NPA-NDF Rebellion," and that "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" be made a redirect to "Communism in the Philippines," which covers all the movements, from the Unión Obrera Democrática right on up to the present. I strongly feel that NPA needs to have its own article; while the history is shared, an NPA article would keep us from having too long a CPP-NPA article. I do not understand the NDF enough to have strong opinions, but my impression is that merging that article with CPP, too, would mean making the articles too long. What I can't decide is whether I support a merge between "CPP-NPA-NDF Rebellion" and "Communist Party of the Philippines"; I'll need to study and comment again later. And on one last note, I feel that there needs to be more coverage of the Rejectionist-Reaffirmist Split and the events leading to and from that era. It's a major conflict flashpoint in our history and the general public needs to understand that era better so they can make up their own minds with all the facts, and not be too swayed by the propaganda of either side. - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, also: the peace-sensitive (and WP:Neutral acceptable) title for this is "conflict", not "rebellion" or "insurrecton." - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Merge with New People's Army article?
I made a proposal at Talk:New People's Army#Merge this article with Communist Party of the Philippines and Communist insurgency in the Philippines article?. Please comment there so that there is only one discussion and we can reach a WP:Consensus.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comments above, under "Page Title". - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Remove list of U.S. President as a commander/leader
Twice now an editor has added in the U.S. president as a commander in this fight. So what's the WP:Consensus? The instructions in the template (Template:Infobox military conflict) say "the commanders of the military forces involved". Since the U.S. has not had any military forces on the ground actively engaged, I do not think that the U.S. head of state should be listed as a "commander". Comments? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Sources
http://www.mindanaoexaminer.com/news.php?news_id=20130719110432
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/444617/3-suspected-npa-fighters-arrested-in-palawan-police
Rajmaan (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
World Mathaba Organization
Gaddafi used his World Mathaba Organization to support various revolutionary separatist groups
Hasan di Tiro helped Mathaba and Gaddafi support the Free Papua Movement of Jacob Prai, the Kanak faction in New Caledonia, the South Maluku Separatists, and the Moro National Liberation Front led by Nur Misuari in the Philippines.
Republic of South Maluku Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor Papua conflict Free Papua Movement Moro insurgency in the Philippines Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Libyan+terrorism:+the+case+against+Gaddafi.-a014151801
the time, the Libyan government was reportedly providing military or other support to the East Timor Liberation Movement, the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (New Caledonia), and the Free Papua Movement (Irian Jaya) as well as to Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines.
Title Pacific Islands Monthly, Volume 59 Publisher Pacific Publications., 1988 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Sep 15, 2008
Page 18
COLONEL GADDAFI'S shadowy international revolutionary organisation Mathaba, established in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and dispensing funds to liberation movements around the world, is run by a most unlikely radical. Tunku Mohammed Hassan di Tiro, a Sumatran prince, fervent Muslim and bitter opponent of Indonesia, is the chairman of Mathaba's political committee.... Hassan di Tiro himself makes the crucial decisions, and runs a personal network of contacts with the liberation movement leaders Libya supports, among them Jacob Prai of the OPM (Free Papua Movement) of West Papua and Yann Ce- tene Uregei of New Caledonia's Kanak radical faction,
In an exclusive interview with Pacific Islands Monthly, at his headquarters in Tripoli, he outlined Mathaba's organisation and aims for the Asia Pacific region. The Mathaba Against Imperialism, Racism, Zionism and Fascism, to give the front its
the various independence movements active across the Indonesian Archipelago, including his own Aceh Sumatra Liberation Front. "We are making advances against Indonesia, both on the ground and diplomatically, with Fretilin (East Timor Liberation Front), the OPM, the Republic of the South Moluccas; we are all one.
Title Pacific Islands Monthly: PIM., Volume 59, Issues 1-10 Publisher Pacific Publications, 1988 Original from the University of Virginia Digitized Apr 8, 2009
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964515,00.html
Page 120
In the past year Gaddafi's agents have offered arms and cash to rebels in Papua New Guinea, encouraged an aboriginal separatist movement in Australia, shipped weapons to dissidents in New Caledonia and tried to open an office in the
Other information on Mathaba
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/messagestick/stories/s1104740.htm
http://overland.org.au/2013/10/michael-mansell-australian-of-the-year/
http://www.examiner.com.au/story/470288/gaddafi-loses-touch-with-people-mansell/
http://books.google.com/books?id=a9ppOE30u8EC&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=AY-gZEaijmsC&pg=PA249#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,964515,00.html
Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front
http://books.google.com/books?id=aVcG7EkuPgAC&pg=PA345#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 18
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Libyan+terrorism:+the+case+against+Gaddafi.-a014151801
B-Class Assessment Request Questions
Per a request on the MILHIST page here are some questions/concerns about the current state of the article:
- Grammar throughout needs to be hammered out with possible help from the Guild of Copy Editors
- Should the insurgency start date be 1969, the date of formation of the New Peoples Army, instead of 1971, first date of action?
- If " 21 September 1972, president Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law" how could the insurgency be a product of that decree if it was founded in 1971 or 1969?
- MILF insurgency should probably be explained more
- Timeline is long, making this article seem almost to be a list
- Blank sections in the article either need to be filled or removed
- If the groups were more active in the 1970s/80s why are there more citations about new attacks?
- Not everything in the lead is included in the article
Hopefully this will help with further improvements to the article. --Molestash (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment. I took on this article as part of the Guild's list of articles needing help. I cleaned up the grammar tonight, excluding the timeline per the author's request. I believe I've hammered out the grammar issues but others would probably know more about the subject matter discrepancies. Maxwellwarner (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Grammar Edits above timeline section
Maxwellwarner (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I copy edited the Timeline section, as it also needed some. --Stfg (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 2 March 2020
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. The title originally proposed clearly did not meet approval. Several alternative suggestions were made during the course of the discussion, of which Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1969–present) seemed to be the most commonly accepted. However none of them reached a level of support that would justify closing this discussion in favour of a move. It might be worth starting a new RM with this specific title as the proposed target. Number 57 21:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Communist rebellion in the Philippines → CPP–NPA–NDF conflict – This article should not be named "Communist rebellion in the Philippines," since that sidelines some significant movements, notably the PKP-1930, the CPLA, and the ABB-RPA. It also effectively sidelines Marxist-Leninist history in favor of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist history. This is why this insurgency is so poorly understood by the public. My proposal is that this article be renamed "CPP-NPA-NDF Rebellion," and that "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" be made a redirect to "Communism in the Philippines," which covers all the movements, from the Unión Obrera Democrática right on up to the present. CPP, NPA, and NDF should remain their own articles although they are linked, because there are key differences in the strucutre and funciton of each organization. Additionally: the WP:NPOV title for this is "conflict", not "rebellion" or "insurrecton." Unless what we want is a review of the conflict from a tactical/strategic standpoint, but that does not seem to be the intent of this article. Also, note that CPP-NPA-NDF is accepted and used Philippine Government Security Agencies such as the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, as demonstrated on their website at https://peace.gov.ph/timeline/peace-process-cpp-npa-ndf/ . Chieharumachi (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. "CPP–NPA–NDF" is too technical, not WP:COMMONNAME enough.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Leaning toward oppose (or some other rationale or some other title): I don't really understand much of the nominator's rationale. Are they saying that Marxist-Leninist thinking is not communist? Or that Marxist-Leninist-Maoist thinking is not communist?What is NPOV about "rebellion"? Also, the proposed title uses a long string of abbreviations that seems hard to remember. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)- Comments below under "Use of CPP-NPA-NDF" - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I withdrew some parts of my comment above. Probably some change of the title is needed, since the current title doesn't seem precise enough to uniquely identify the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I was gonna say those acronyms (except maybe NPA) have to be spelled out as per WP:ACRONYMTITLE as i know many readers aren't familiar with the CPP and especially NDF. They know NPA stands for New People's Army as it is often reported in the news regarding an attack or arson somewhere in the provinces but the other two haven't reached the same popularity IMO. My suggestion would be to name the different communist rebellions according to the years they existed, so that this article concerning the ongoing war being waged by the Communist Party of the Philippines, New People's Army and National Democratic Front of the Philippines would be at Communist rebellion in the Philippines (1969–present) and that of Hukbalahap would be at Communist rebellion in the Philippines (1942–54). I dont think the PKP30 counts as rebellion as it didnt engage in armed conflict with the Philippine govt and that as per the article it was just a political party or political movement which only started uprising when it formed the Hukbalahap which should be covered in 1942-54 rebellion article. The ABB-RPA and CPLA being breakaway factions of the NPA should be included in this 1969-present rebellion article.--RioHondo (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, generally per WP:ACRONYMTITLE; also per WP:CSB. Some of those acronyms would be well known in the Philippines but not at all well known outside of the Philippines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Concede/Repropose - Yes RioHondo, the proposed alternative fixes a big part of the problem, by distinguishing PKP-30-Huks from CPP-69-NPA. I feel that this article needs to say more about the divisions that came out of the Second Great Rectification Movement, but maybe that can be fixed in the writing. So I think your idea works. The only thing I'd change is the term rebellion, which is still very loaded and certainly not neutral. I like Iloilo Wanderer's suggestion of "insurgency" below, so I propose Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1942–54) and Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1969–present) instead. (Ignoring Moro conflict for now.) - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sidecomment - Regarding the familiarity with the CPP and NPA, though, really? To not know the NDF, I guess is normal. Even college level students might not have heard of it. But the CPP? Seems to me like anyone reading above tabloid level (or what, 4th grade elementary?) would know what the CPP is and who Joma Sison is. It would sort of bother me a lot if I realized that by "popular" we go as far as tabloid-level awareness. - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- (insertion) This is in reaction to a dated comment above but, anyhow, think of those acronyms from a global vs. a Philippine-centric viewpoint; see NDF, CPP, and NPA (which are a disambiguation pages). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm good with Communist insurgency. It's actually more commonly used as per google search. "Communist insurgency in the Philippines": 25,800 results vs. "Communist rebellion in the Philippines": 10,600 results. As for CPP popularity, because it's not active in politics and the only mentions it gets in the media is as part of a sporadic peace process, it's not a household name compared to NPA which is notorious. People mistake it for CCP sometimes, i know i did. Lol--RioHondo (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Support move to Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1969–present).--RioHondo (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. No reason has been given to change the title in terms of our article naming policy. The lead section appears to have been edited anticipating this move; This should insead be reverted to comply with the MOS. Andrewa (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Looking at that page you mention, User talk:Andrewa, it fails WP:PRECISION because the article only talks about the activities of the Communist Party of the Philippines and not other communist insurgent groups; I don't object to expanding it as an alternative. But it also fails WP:NATURALDIS because it's confusing beside Communism in the Philippines. But I now agree that CPP–NPA–NDF conflict doesn't work. So I remain open to alternatives. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Additional comment - I think in the case of why it fails WP:PRECISION, the problem is that there's a common misconception that all "Philippine communist insurgency" is "New People's Army insurgency," because the NPA are covered so prominently by the media. But this is not true historically, in terms of either the mid-20th century to in terms of contemporary (i.e. 1969 onwards) history. Contemporarily, the RPA-ABB and CPLA may have agreed to lay down their arms, but their respective dissolutions as insurgent groups aren't complete yet (i.e. they and the other smaller communist groups still exist). And even then, this title brushes aside their significant insurgent acts through the '80s and '90s. - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- On the other hand, a realization: if this article is only supposed to be about conflict (battle, strategy, tactics, etc) and not organizations (which explains the separate articles for the NPA, CPP, and the NDF), the actual combatant is the New People's Army. So maybe from that point of view, New People's Army insurgency is the most accurate title, or some variant depending on what to do with that last noun (insurgency, insurrection, conflict,etc)? But in that case it will be very important to have hatnotes clearly indicating that this is about the conflict specifically, and there are separate pages about the organizations involved. - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer moving it to Maoist insurgency in the Philippines or Maoist rebellion in the Philippines, since IMO it's the most concise (the CPP-NPA-NDF is currently only the Maoist group here in the Philippines), though I'm okay with Communist rebellion in the Philippines (1969–present) or Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1969–present). Pandakekok9 (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
Two issues I think and so maybe discuss differently.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Use of "CPP–NPA–NDF"
Commment The acronyms will only be understood by someone who has less need of the article. Maybe "Communist Party of the Philippines insurgency". I think for the purposes of the article title we can treat the CPP as the NPA as the NDF. The article in its body can explain the difference, as relevant in a brief encyclopedia article. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - First of all let me point out that Communism in the Philippines article exists. It is the bigger article, which covers multiple Philippine Communist organizations. The point I made about Marxist Leninist vs Maoist isn't that they're not communist, it's that they're different kinds of communist. And saying the Maoists are the same as the Marxist Leninists is inaccurate. My reason for this proposal is that these movements need to be better understood and documented, because it doesn't help to just lump them all together. Confusing the venn diagram of affiliations is not going to help. This article title implies that all communists are CPP members. That's just wrong, although the opposite is true (CPP membership implies being communist).
- Also, I point out Communist Party of the Philippines, New People's Army, and National Democratic Front all exist. Are the suggestions saying they should be merged? But this is a topic for another day.
- Another option is CPP-NPA insurrection/conflict/whatever. That's more common usage, although not the term used by the Ph government. - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Follow up Comment - This is like having an article titled "Moro conflict", but which only mentions the MILF - ignoring the MNLF, BIFF, MIM, etc. - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- CommmentThis is why I suggested using the party's name, the "Communist Party of the Philippines", spelling out the acronym, and not just plain "communist".--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Follow up Comment - This is like having an article titled "Moro conflict", but which only mentions the MILF - ignoring the MNLF, BIFF, MIM, etc. - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Commment Re "Seems to me like anyone reading above tabloid level (or what, 4th grade elementary?) would know what the CPP is and who Joma Sison is." by Chieharumachi above.... That tabloid-level reader is EXACTLY who this article is geared towards. If one knows who Joma Sison and the NDF are, would one be reading this Wikipedia article? A reader comes to this article because they are an elementary student in the Philippines, or they are not familiar with the Philippines and the insurgency because they live abroad. If we do not think that a 4th grade elementary student would understand the language or acronym, we should explain it. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment -
Just to clarify, does that mean the proposal is Communist Party of the Philippines New People's Army insurgency in the Philippines? Or is it some other variant?Just redlinking the proposed alternative here, as I understand it ...Communist Party of the Philippines insurgency? As opposed to including the NPA as in Communist Party of the Philippines New People's Army insurgency? - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)- Comment I say we scrap the names of those organizations and just stick to the generic Communist insurgency as its title. And use years as disambiguation. As pointed out in the earlier discussion above, we are dealing with more than these three organizations engaged in armed conflict with the govt, like the CPLA and ABB-RPA. It would be pointless to have to come up with a separate insurgency article for those breakaway groups. All of them have their own separate articles that discuss their organization anyway, but their rebellions are interlinked and happened within the same time frame.--RioHondo (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Use of "conflict"
Commment I agree that "rebellion" and "insurrection" imply a bigger conflict. On the other hand, "conflict" does not imply the insurgency's armed, organized, and top-down nature. I like "insurgency". Yes, it is related to the "insurrection" but it is a different noun with a different meaning and a different Wikipedia article. Insurgency is described as "a violent rebellion against authority when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents (lawful combatants)." and insurrection as "An armed but limited rebellion ... and if the established government does not recognize the rebels as belligerents then they are insurgents and the revolt is an insurgency." The NPA has not been fully recognized throughout the conflict as a legal belligerents under the laws of war. Beyond that I think of insurrections as brief, large and violent with the term often used in hindsight. Insurrections are a revolt, maybe leading to a revolution. Usually insurrections are successful or at least impactful. Insurgencies vary in size, are ongoing, and may have little impact, just kind of petering out. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I guess I must ask, what is the point of the article? Is the point of this article the organization/coalition, or is the point of this article the history and the status of communist conflicts/insurgencies overall? I made this suggestion assuming the first. If it's the second, shouldn't it be "History of communist insurgency in the Philippines," if it isn't just plain merged with Communism in the Philippines? - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Commment Neither I think, or is it both. I think of it as being narrower. I always thought of this article as about the communist insurgency of the current CPP/NPA/NDF group. The Communism in the Philippines article is a broader topic and can cover along with the CPP and current insurgency, the Huks, and the legal left, aong others. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - That brings me back to the assertion that we can't have a title that tackles CPP/NPA/NDF (Maoist) but not the ABB-RPA (Marxist-Leninist) and CPLA (No idea what their doctrine was/is) if it's supposed to cover 1969 all the way forward, and PKP-1930 if we go back all the way. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Further Comment - But to bring us back to the focus of this section, are we settled on insurgency? We can keep discussing the group identities in the other section. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Commment Neither I think, or is it both. I think of it as being narrower. I always thought of this article as about the communist insurgency of the current CPP/NPA/NDF group. The Communism in the Philippines article is a broader topic and can cover along with the CPP and current insurgency, the Huks, and the legal left, aong others. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The lead paragraph
The MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH currently opens with
The CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion is an ongoing conflict between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist[1] coalition of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People's Army (NPA), and the National Democratic Front (NDF). It is the largest, longest-running, most prominent communist conflict in the Philippines,[1] in contrast to the Marxist–Leninist[2] RPMP-RPA-ABB rebellion, and the now-defunct Hukbalahap and Cordillera People’s Liberation Army Rebellions.[3]
MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE says in part, "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses". That clearly was not done here.
MOS:LEADSENTENCE opens by saying: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere."
This lead paragraph needs to be rewritten with these points in mind. I'll note here that these acronyms, as used here, are peculiar to the article topic and might be unfamiliar to readers unfamiliar with the topic. NDF would need disambiguation; see the NDF disambiguation page.
Also, from the comment in the section above re "Marxist Leninist vs Maoist", I gather that the article isn't clear about what it means by its topic of Communist rebellion in the Philippines. The opening paragraph of the article should make that clear. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The subject of the first sentence
I hesitate to call this WP:BOLD but, bold or not, I have here changed the subject of the first sentence of the article to restate the article title, per the part of MOS:FIRST which says: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b "Philippines' communist rebellion is Asia's longest-running insurgency". South China Morning Post. 16 September 2019. Archived from the original on 16 September 2019. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
- ^ "About the RPM-M". Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
- ^ "Statement of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process during the Peace Media Forum, November 9, 2011". Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. 17 September 2017. Archived from the original on 17 September 2017. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
Mapping out the subject
Alright, learning much from the move request, the nature of this wiki is becoming a bit clearer, at least to me. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the difference is that this is about the military conflict - whereas the article Communism in the Philippines is about the ideology, and the articles for New People's Army, the Communist Party of the Philippines, and the National Democratic Front concern the three organizations described here as being in coalition. The difference between this article and Communism in the Philippines being analogous to that of the Hukbalahap and Hukbalahap rebellion. Much of the difficulty I had in the earlier discussion seems to spring from the fact that the difference between articles is unclear. So what I propose to do is to edit the article to make those differences clearer before making any further proposals for moves or deletions. I don't want to be accused of not consulting the community first, so I want to clarify my understanding of the thematic mapping of articles now:
Ideology: Communism in the Philippines
- Organizations after 1969: New People’s Army, Communist Party of the Philippines, National Democratic Front
- Conflict (Event) after 1969: This Article
- Organizations before 1969: Hukbalahap
- Conflict (Event) before 1969: Hukbalahap rebellion
Ideology: Moro separatism in the Philippines (Missing)
- Organizations: MIM, BMLO MNLF, MILF, etc
- Conflict (Event): Moro conflict
I'm going to start enhancing this article by making it clear that it's about the military conflict as an event, rather than an article about the ideology itself, since there's an existing Communism in the Philippines article. At some point, I'm probably going to suggest a move to New People's Army rebellion or a similar article. But for now, I'm going to just expand the article. Like I said, comments are welcome and feel free to stop me if I'm mistaken. I just want the delineations between articles to be as clear as possible, so that the shape of the conflict can be depicted factually, without favoring either side of the conflict. @Wtmitchell:, since I get the impression you have much experience with such overlaps between closely related topics/articles, I covet your thoughts in particular. Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Correction: it's National Democratic Front of the Philippines, not National Democratic Front. Also, there's National Democracy Movement (Philippines) and perhaps other articles. In direct response, I have to say that I am no expert in this particular topic -- certainly not in its nuances. I won't be following this edit-by-edit, but I'll try to keep half an eye on the changes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Plaza Miranda bombing
This edit to another article caught my eye, and I noted the quote there saying: "the (Communist) party leadership planned -- and three operatives carried out -- the attack in an attempt to provoke government repression and push the country to the brink of revolution [...]". This rang a bell with me because I've recently been paying some attention to talk page discussions here. It strikes me that this appears to merit mention either in the Insurgency or the Incidents in specific regions and provinces section of this article. There's a bit more detail at Plaza Miranda bombing#Suspects. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's actually here right at the beginning of the "Incidents" section, but not highlighted as the Plaza Miranda bombing. It was there before I started the expansion and I haven't touched it at all except to put it in an appropriate subsection, largely because it's slightly controversial and I'm not quite sure what to do with it. If Jovito Salonga is convinced it was the NPA, though, then I'm convinced too. But I don't know what the shape of the narrative should be, as a result. Lots of reading still needed. (BTW, I corrected the heading from plaze to plaza. Hope you don't mind.) - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- What's eating at me right now is how to add the MV Karagatan incident, because most of the portrayals are very partisan, either on the left or the right. It's very difficult to craft an objective, balanced telling of the facts that sides neither with the AFP nor the NPA. Another thing I'm trying to figure out is the PMA Armory incident with Victor Corpus. Both of those are early incidents which should be in that section too. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- What is important, IMO, is to avoid making a subjective decision about what conflicting claims are valid and what are not, and to objectively describe what the secondary sources with conflicting viewpoints say about the claims IAW WP:DUE. That is not always easy to do. In particular, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" is not always easy to balance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I so agree. Part of the problem is the limitations of my personal library under COVID-19 conditions. Choice of language influences search results, so I feel going through a selection of physical sources (even if mostly to identify key search terms) is important. I do want to do this correctly. - Chieharumachi (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- What is important, IMO, is to avoid making a subjective decision about what conflicting claims are valid and what are not, and to objectively describe what the secondary sources with conflicting viewpoints say about the claims IAW WP:DUE. That is not always easy to do. In particular, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" is not always easy to balance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- What's eating at me right now is how to add the MV Karagatan incident, because most of the portrayals are very partisan, either on the left or the right. It's very difficult to craft an objective, balanced telling of the facts that sides neither with the AFP nor the NPA. Another thing I'm trying to figure out is the PMA Armory incident with Victor Corpus. Both of those are early incidents which should be in that section too. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
"Communist rebellion" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Communist rebellion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Communist rebellion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pandakekok9 (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the CPP splinter groups
Is it still worth keeping them in the infobox? They don't seem to be active anymore. Some of those RJs (rejectionists) even surrendered a long time ago and are now a part of the AFP. If they are still to be kept, they should be separated into their own belligerent, as the current infobox makes the reader assume that the CPP and the RJs are working together, when they are clearly not. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 04:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 7 February 2021
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There has been a successful resolution to this issue, with a consensus for the formation of the new page Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines, but not move of the parent page. There is no consensus to move to "New People's Army rebellion", and if someone wants to propose that separately then they can do so, but it seems the original question has been resolved. — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Communist rebellion in the Philippines → Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1969–present) – I think Chieharumachi's second option to move this article to Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1969–present) just needed a clearer consensus to execute the page move, so I would like to formally reintroduce this proposal. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support - as per arguments already brought up in the previous discussion, and in the interest of making this topic less subject to gross oversimplification. - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Clarifying comments - Okay, let's make some distinctions. There have been at least four notable Communist insurgencies seeking to unseat the Philippine government of their time: the Hukbalahap Rebellion, the NPA Rebellion, the CPLA Rebellion (see Cordillera People's Liberation Army) and the RPA-ABB Rebellion (see RPMP-RPA-ABB rebellion which redirects to "Revolutionary Workers' Party (Philippines)"). But the broad historical periods are dominated by the Hukbalahap (1932-1954) and the CPP (1969-Present) and defined by such in media portrayal. The article above makes sense if it's describing a broad historical period, and I support that as better than no differentiation. But it misrepresents the topic if it says the NPA, CPLA and the ABB are all the same thing. (Even if you treat the ABB as a splinter group). I would thus prefer that the main articles be a quadriptych of Hukbalahap Rebellion, NPA Rebellion, RPMP-RPA-ABB Rebellion, and CPLA Rebellion (Cordillera People's Liberation Army). But I'm okay with Hukbalahap Rebellion and Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1969–present), provided the latter clearly shows the CPLA and ABB as separate rebellions in that same time period. So in sum:
- Strong Support for Hukbalahap Rebellion, NPA Rebellion, RPMP-RPA-ABB Rebellion, and CPLA Rebellion
- Weak Support for "Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1969–present)" and Hukbalahap Rebellion - Chieharumachi (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Chieharumachi: The problem with these acronyms is that they are not easily recognisable, especially for foreign readers, how are we going to deal with that? And shouldn't "Rebellion" be written in small caps? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @HueMan1:Oh, I just followed the format of Hukbalahap Rebellion. I don't mind either way, and I suppose WP MOS applies. I also don't really have an opinion anymore on insurgency vs rebellion. I suggest Hukbalahap Rebellion can stay since the acronym is better known by far, NPA Rebellion can be New People's Army rebellion (since they're the armed force), RPMP-RPA-ABB rebellion can be moved to Revolutionary Proletarian Army rebellion (Although that entire set of redirects needs to be restudied), and CPLA Rebellion can be Cordillera People's Liberation Army rebellion (Redirect to CPLA). Basically name the rebellion after the main armed force, ignoring the party or political wing for the purposes of documenting the conflict. (I presume separate articles will still exist for those... wings. There will still be separate articles for NDF, CPP, RWP, CPLA as an entity separate from the rebellion, NPA as an entity separate from the rebellion, and so on. Er... and if that's unacceptable, maybe we should get rid of the rebellions series altogether and just subsume the discussion under each armed group.) - Chieharumachi (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Chieharumachi: The problem with these acronyms is that they are not easily recognisable, especially for foreign readers, how are we going to deal with that? And shouldn't "Rebellion" be written in small caps? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per discussion below.--RioHondo (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. More sources actually call this an insurgency than a rebellion. And redirect Communist rebellion in the Philippines to Communist insurgency in the Philippines, with Communist insurgency in the Philippines (1942–1954) as a redirect to Hukbalahap Rebellion.--RioHondo (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC) - Oppose as written, but support the principle behind it, in particular support a move to simply Communist insurgency in the Philippines (without years) and do away with the disambiguation page entirely. See the page statistics for the three pages mentioned. There's no point sending people to a disambiguation page first, when it's just as easy to send them to this article first, with a link to the other article right at the top of the page per WP:ONEOTHER as at present. FDW777 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I still prefer "Maoist rebellion in the Philippines", but I have no objections to simply appending a "(1969-present)" on the title. I oppose replacing the word "rebellion" with "insurgency" though, since "rebel" and "rebellion" is still primarily used in the media. It is only the government that is pushing the "insurgency" term. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @Pandakekok9: seems to have a better handle on this than me, so for now, I defer to his comment on rebellion vis a vis insurgency. - Chieharumachi (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as stated. I'd agree with User:pandakekok9's analysis that the "right" title is "Maoist rebellion in the Philippines", but that's mainly for political science buffs. Mainstream media describes "Communist rebellion in the Philippines", today, in the 21st century, refers to the activities of the New People's Army. Adamantly opposed to hilariously bad article title using any mixture of acronyms in any order as unquestionably failing WP:NC. Now, I'd probably be open to separate articles about activities of the NPA, and other similar organizations under "Cordillera People's Liberation Army rebellion", for example, or perhaps Communist rebellion in the Philippine Cordillera." Or probably another description other than "rebellion"; rebellion insinuates that the rebels are attempting to overthrow the government, but for the CPLA and ABB, their objectives were not exactly that. But an alphabet soup rebellion will always fail WP:NC and everyone should oppose having articles named that way. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'd also suggest on checking how the Irish did this with civil conflict series of articles that culminated in The Troubles. They didn't name the articles with "IRA rebellion" or PIRA rebellion or the hilariously bad SF-IRA rebellion". (I'd have to admit that the current communist rebellion in the Philippines does not have a sexy name such as "The Troubles", that's why we're stuck with descriptive names.) Howard the Duck (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. "Maoist" is definitely not WP:COMMONNAME. Communist is, as in the familiar phrase used by both local and international media the longest running communist insurgency. I don't think there's a more appropriate title that follows our WP:AT guidelines more closely than the current one. For one, the insurgency is led by the Communist Party which lends its name to this revolt ;) But i agree that those allied groups waging their own rebellions could have articles of their own. However, this title belongs to our primary topic and common name for this Communist party-led CPP-NPA-NDF revolt. Communist insurgency is the more commonly used term in GBooks though. A second option is plain New People's Army insurgency, at least in the PH, people are actually familiar with the NPA than the CPP and especially not NDF ;) ). As for a sexy name, i think People's war (Philippines) or protracted people's war (Philippines) would be a good candidate or Red conflict (Philippines) (please don't red-tag me) lol ;)--RioHondo (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you're reading what Filipino political science students eats for breakfast, "Maoist" is definitely the definition most literature describe the CPP, well aside from "communist", or probably to distinguish from PKP-1930 which was supposed to be old school Soviet communism. Mainstream media describe the CPP as "Communist", and if you're talking about "Communist rebellion" (I do think "Communist insurgency" has a fighting chance for being the WP:NC name.), we're talking about the NPA's. If you'd ask me, the question is not if we'd add parenthetical disambiguation, but if we'd use the term rebellion or insurgency. AFP faces rebels, but what's happening is an insurgency; apparently insurgency is a subset of rebellion, with all insurgencies being rebellions, but not all rebellions are insurgencies. It also doesn't help that the government's task force is this is on a neutral sounding "End Local Communist Armed Conflict". Howard the Duck (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. "Maoist" is definitely not WP:COMMONNAME. Communist is, as in the familiar phrase used by both local and international media the longest running communist insurgency. I don't think there's a more appropriate title that follows our WP:AT guidelines more closely than the current one. For one, the insurgency is led by the Communist Party which lends its name to this revolt ;) But i agree that those allied groups waging their own rebellions could have articles of their own. However, this title belongs to our primary topic and common name for this Communist party-led CPP-NPA-NDF revolt. Communist insurgency is the more commonly used term in GBooks though. A second option is plain New People's Army insurgency, at least in the PH, people are actually familiar with the NPA than the CPP and especially not NDF ;) ). As for a sexy name, i think People's war (Philippines) or protracted people's war (Philippines) would be a good candidate or Red conflict (Philippines) (please don't red-tag me) lol ;)--RioHondo (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- The only plausible name for the ongoing communist rebellion in the Philippines is "communist rebellion in the Philippines" (or replace "rebellion" with "insurgency" or "conflict", with no disambiguation). From what I know, the Alex Boncayao Brigade's specialty was assassinations, so it's not exactly a "rebellion" or "insurgency" as defined, but my be swayed otherwise if WP:RS describes the ABB's activities as a rebellion too... but that's not the topic of this discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose whatever the result of the RM is, the totally made up "CPP-NPA-NDF rebellion" has to be extinguished from the face of Wikipedia. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Before we move on to other suggestions, then, may I ask if there are specific objections to New People's Army rebellion, specifically? And if so, what? Yes, withdrawing support for "CPP-NPA-NDF rebellion," although that's the one I have used for seven years now. I still think "Communist" is far too overbroad, even if you treat "rebellion" as limiting the scope of "communist". I have no objections to "Maoist", but that doesn't mean I have to support it, either. I just think the current description if far far far too
inaccurateimprecise for academic or encyclopedia purposes.- Chieharumachi (talk)- @Chieharumachi: I think New People's Army rebellion is a good compromise for all of these. I'm not sure whether "rebellion" should be capitalised or not though. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- New People's Army rebellion looks good to me. After all, as RioHondo said, Filipinos are more familiar with the NPA rather than the CPP. It's the NPA that is doing the heavy work.
And to add to my argument as to why it should be called a "rebellion" rather than an "insurgency", though the government and international community haven't officially recognized the belligerency of the CPP-NPA-NDF, the actions of the government during the numerous peace talks implies that the communists do have belligerency status. There were the numerous prisoner exchanges, the JASIG and CARHRIHL agreements, and the de facto government established in its Samar stronghold. Combined with the fact that "rebellion" and "rebel" are primarily used in mainstream media, I think the case for "rebellion" is stronger than "insurgency". pandakekok9 (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have no preference between "rebellion" and "insurgency"; while I do see "insurgency" being used by WP:RS, interestingly more by foreign sources, many still use "rebellion", and I have no issue with either term.
- Again, if people refer to "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" in 2021, they're referring to the NPA's rebellion. For the CPP's splinter groups, I'd rather use the actual article of the armed wing of the splinter group (like Alex Boncayao Brigade) for their activities. As stated above, we can follow the Northern Irish examples and not just simply do the "<alphabet soup> rebellion" nomenclature; after all, they didn't name it as "IRA rebellion", lack of sexy names aside. That's lazy, and is not compliant with WP:NC. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Howard the Duck: I agree with your suggestion to limit the scope of this article to just the NPA's activities and dispense the splinter groups' activities to their respective articles. About the Irish example, do we have an equivalent name for this rebellion? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @HueMan1: There's no sexy name for this, whatever this is. The WP:NC name for this is the "Communist rebellion", with "Communist insurgency" not that far behind. Since we cannot use that name, we'd do a WP:NATDIS and use "communist rebellion in the Philippines". The government's task force uses "Communist Armed Conflict". Howard the Duck (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Howard the Duck: I agree with your suggestion to limit the scope of this article to just the NPA's activities and dispense the splinter groups' activities to their respective articles. About the Irish example, do we have an equivalent name for this rebellion? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Before we move on to other suggestions, then, may I ask if there are specific objections to New People's Army rebellion, specifically? And if so, what? Yes, withdrawing support for "CPP-NPA-NDF rebellion," although that's the one I have used for seven years now. I still think "Communist" is far too overbroad, even if you treat "rebellion" as limiting the scope of "communist". I have no objections to "Maoist", but that doesn't mean I have to support it, either. I just think the current description if far far far too
- Regarding the IRA example, while the article about the larger conflict is at The Troubles there is an article dealing with the IRA's specific campaign at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. I'm still yet to be convinced a disambiguator using a year is needed for this article, unless someone can simply explain what articles they believe should exist and with what names. FDW777 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- One caveat with the Irish example is that there were several IRAs (but the Provisional Irish Republican Army was the IRA during the Troubles.), and that "Irish nationalist" can mean several organizations in the height of the Troubles. In the Philippines, it's quite clear, in 2021, that if you're referring to "communist rebels", it is the NPA. Other "communist rebels" would have to be specified; see also what was done with "Moro conflict". I'd imagine that in the 1980s, "communist rebels" might not be enough and we'd have to specify "which one" of them, but in 2021, this is not the case. I love the fact that the Huks have "trademarked" "Hukbalahap" so that we don't have to badly disambiguate their rebellion from the present one. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'd also imagine that IRA did have an actual military campaign; the NPA relies on skirmishes and guerilla tactics, I don't think you can properly call that a "military campaign", although if WP:RS say so I may be convinced. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- But but but... I come to this article primarily as a reader of history, not current events. In fact, I get to it primarily through the Marcos-related pages. And when I read it, I am just more confused than ever about the '80s and '90s. Communism in the Philippines has had a long long history. The same is true even in the case of Maoism. We cannot presume that the reader is looking at the information primarily from the POV of 2021. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Our policy on WP:NC refers to how the subject is called in
2021the present time. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)- That's what bothers me. The "Communist rebellion in the Philippines in 2021" is not the same thing as "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" (look, no definite article) through time. (1940-present) Not even if you change it to Maoist. (1960-present). The danger is ascribing the entire history of the conflict to a faction not all combatants agree(/d) with, effectively empowering that faction and erasing the other factions - factions which are not insignificant. The overgeneralization severely harms the discourse, in academic, historical, journalistic, and popular terms. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" in the present time is the "communist rebellion in the Philippines", just as Hukbalahap's rebellion was the "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" in the 1940s-50s. But since it is 2021, and by this time, we've called whatever the Huks did as the Hukbalahap Rebellion. Now, if ever rebels from the rebels split away from the NPA, and they become the "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" by 2091, that can be discussed. In 2091. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's what bothers me. The "Communist rebellion in the Philippines in 2021" is not the same thing as "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" (look, no definite article) through time. (1940-present) Not even if you change it to Maoist. (1960-present). The danger is ascribing the entire history of the conflict to a faction not all combatants agree(/d) with, effectively empowering that faction and erasing the other factions - factions which are not insignificant. The overgeneralization severely harms the discourse, in academic, historical, journalistic, and popular terms. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Our policy on WP:NC refers to how the subject is called in
- But but but... I come to this article primarily as a reader of history, not current events. In fact, I get to it primarily through the Marcos-related pages. And when I read it, I am just more confused than ever about the '80s and '90s. Communism in the Philippines has had a long long history. The same is true even in the case of Maoism. We cannot presume that the reader is looking at the information primarily from the POV of 2021. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding the IRA example, while the article about the larger conflict is at The Troubles there is an article dealing with the IRA's specific campaign at Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign. I'm still yet to be convinced a disambiguator using a year is needed for this article, unless someone can simply explain what articles they believe should exist and with what names. FDW777 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment While i agree that an article for New People's Army rebellion may be warranted, i still feel like this article should be kept and not simply as a redirect to the NPA conflict. It is true that the NPA is top of mind when it comes to the term "communist rebellion or insurgency in PH" (can we just call it Communist conflict in the Philippines borrowing from that Moro conflict article that HTD brought up? ;)), but i think that this topic is so widely covered in RSs that it would still be the primary search term for what we know is the NPA conflict. And like the Moro conflict article, we can branch it off to the earlier Moro Rebellion like the Hukbalahap Rebellion, and then have the NPA as its main focus with links to splinter groups RPAABB, CPLA etc (like the MNLF with the MILF, ASG, BIFF or what have yous.) Of course, like the Moro conflict, this article would just be an overview of the communist conflict as we know it today, with the main actors being the CPP and NPA, as with the Moro conflict's MN and MI. Doesnt mean separate articles for other current conflicts based on Muslim secessionist or Communist ideas may not be created and branched off from those main articles. Just my twocents ;)--RioHondo (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just an opinion, not part of the actual discussion at hand: I feel "new significant splinter groups or communist rebel groups sometime in the future" isn't just possible, but inevitable. Unless you have a clear victory or wipeout defeat by either side at some point.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree with @RioHondo: more about needing a macro level Communist rebellion in the Philippines. (A conflict, rather than ideology article, since the latter is covered by Communism in the Philippines). - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree on having an article about conflicts between various Communists and the government. Would it be named as "Communist rebellion in the Philippines"? No, because in the present time, when you say "rebelding komunista", it's the NPA. I can't believe we're discussing this. In the present time, when you refer "Communist rebellion in the Philippines", you know what it is about. Now, if by 2091, "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" has meant differently by that time, sure initiate an RM, in 2091. We can't base naming conventions on what entities were named in the past; first, that's more confusing that now (who's era are we basing it on?), and two, who wins if two entities have the same name, and both claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC during their heyday? You can argue that, in the history of humanity, "Perth" has meant "Perth, Scotland" for a far longer time than "Perth" (which is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because in the present time "Perth" refers to the Australian city. But here we are with Perth about the Australian city because in the present time, when you refer to "Perth" most likely, you're looking for the Australian city. Now, if things change, and say, Manila changes its name to "Perth" in 2153, sure, make an RM in 2153. But in 2021, "Perth" is Australian. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, when I talk about Manila in 2021, I am almost always actually referring to the NCR. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's even worse than all surveys, with a sample size of 1. If someone asks you "Who is the mayor of Manila?" what do you answer it with? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't asked that. I was answering the question "What is Manila." (Although yes, that supports your point, since Manila points to the city.) I'm saying there is a sense of the word that is dangerously misrepresented. Especially in a time of pervasive redtagging. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose it is undisputed, to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC levels of certainty, than if you refer to "Communist rebellion in the Philippines", in the present time, you know what it is. We're not red-tagging. The NPA is communist. We're red-tagging if we say "Bayan Muna is communist", or "ACT Teachers are NPA", but we're not doing that. If, in the future, "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" means something else, we'd deal with that, in the future. If in the past, "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" meant something else, we'd probably have to discuss which is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the present time. As for that question, it is indisputable. Sure, we'd be having discussion if the rebellion by the Huks were remembered as "Communist rebellion in the Philippines," but no. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- But the RJs are still getting deleted from this article as proposed? All I really care about here is that the significant voices who disagree and/or disagreed with Sison are not erased, from either history or the ideological discourse. - Chieharumachi (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- They can be pointed to other articles and not erased. As it stands, "communist rebellion in the Philippines" refers to the communist rebellion in the Philippines. What's going to be erased in Wikipedia is the completely made up name of "NPA-NDFP-CPP rebellion" or however the order of the alphabet soup is. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Off topic for this conversation, but CPP/NPA/NDF comes from the negotiation process. It's the term the OPAPP negotiating panel uses (whenever negotiations are on, anyway.) It's not any more "made up" than any of the other names. Anyway. I still feel that the title makes the CPP the default (arguably only) face of Communist armed conflict in the Philippines, which is simply not true. Perhaps it is in the imagination of the AFP. But that doesn't make it true. - Chieharumachi (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the organizations CPP, NDF, and NPA are made up. What I'm saying is using that the alphabet soup in any order, then adding a noun to describe what they are doing, is a made up term. Ergo, the "CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion" (with CPP, NDF, and NPA in any order), or the "RPMP-RPA-ABB Rebellion" is a made-up term, because nobody uses the term "CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion" as exactly as how that is written IRL. The only place where you can find "CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion" is in Wikipedia and its mirrors. You can actually argue "CPP–NPA–NDF" (in any order) is used IRL to denote the CPP, NDF and NPA collectively as one unit, but not those three, plus a noun like "rebellion" or "insurgency". Howard the Duck (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Off topic for this conversation, but CPP/NPA/NDF comes from the negotiation process. It's the term the OPAPP negotiating panel uses (whenever negotiations are on, anyway.) It's not any more "made up" than any of the other names. Anyway. I still feel that the title makes the CPP the default (arguably only) face of Communist armed conflict in the Philippines, which is simply not true. Perhaps it is in the imagination of the AFP. But that doesn't make it true. - Chieharumachi (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- They can be pointed to other articles and not erased. As it stands, "communist rebellion in the Philippines" refers to the communist rebellion in the Philippines. What's going to be erased in Wikipedia is the completely made up name of "NPA-NDFP-CPP rebellion" or however the order of the alphabet soup is. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- But the RJs are still getting deleted from this article as proposed? All I really care about here is that the significant voices who disagree and/or disagreed with Sison are not erased, from either history or the ideological discourse. - Chieharumachi (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose it is undisputed, to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC levels of certainty, than if you refer to "Communist rebellion in the Philippines", in the present time, you know what it is. We're not red-tagging. The NPA is communist. We're red-tagging if we say "Bayan Muna is communist", or "ACT Teachers are NPA", but we're not doing that. If, in the future, "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" means something else, we'd deal with that, in the future. If in the past, "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" meant something else, we'd probably have to discuss which is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in the present time. As for that question, it is indisputable. Sure, we'd be having discussion if the rebellion by the Huks were remembered as "Communist rebellion in the Philippines," but no. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't asked that. I was answering the question "What is Manila." (Although yes, that supports your point, since Manila points to the city.) I'm saying there is a sense of the word that is dangerously misrepresented. Especially in a time of pervasive redtagging. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's even worse than all surveys, with a sample size of 1. If someone asks you "Who is the mayor of Manila?" what do you answer it with? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, when I talk about Manila in 2021, I am almost always actually referring to the NCR. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree on having an article about conflicts between various Communists and the government. Would it be named as "Communist rebellion in the Philippines"? No, because in the present time, when you say "rebelding komunista", it's the NPA. I can't believe we're discussing this. In the present time, when you refer "Communist rebellion in the Philippines", you know what it is about. Now, if by 2091, "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" has meant differently by that time, sure initiate an RM, in 2091. We can't base naming conventions on what entities were named in the past; first, that's more confusing that now (who's era are we basing it on?), and two, who wins if two entities have the same name, and both claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC during their heyday? You can argue that, in the history of humanity, "Perth" has meant "Perth, Scotland" for a far longer time than "Perth" (which is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC because in the present time "Perth" refers to the Australian city. But here we are with Perth about the Australian city because in the present time, when you refer to "Perth" most likely, you're looking for the Australian city. Now, if things change, and say, Manila changes its name to "Perth" in 2153, sure, make an RM in 2153. But in 2021, "Perth" is Australian. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree with @RioHondo: more about needing a macro level Communist rebellion in the Philippines. (A conflict, rather than ideology article, since the latter is covered by Communism in the Philippines). - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just an opinion, not part of the actual discussion at hand: I feel "new significant splinter groups or communist rebel groups sometime in the future" isn't just possible, but inevitable. Unless you have a clear victory or wipeout defeat by either side at some point.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment While i agree that an article for New People's Army rebellion may be warranted, i still feel like this article should be kept and not simply as a redirect to the NPA conflict. It is true that the NPA is top of mind when it comes to the term "communist rebellion or insurgency in PH" (can we just call it Communist conflict in the Philippines borrowing from that Moro conflict article that HTD brought up? ;)), but i think that this topic is so widely covered in RSs that it would still be the primary search term for what we know is the NPA conflict. And like the Moro conflict article, we can branch it off to the earlier Moro Rebellion like the Hukbalahap Rebellion, and then have the NPA as its main focus with links to splinter groups RPAABB, CPLA etc (like the MNLF with the MILF, ASG, BIFF or what have yous.) Of course, like the Moro conflict, this article would just be an overview of the communist conflict as we know it today, with the main actors being the CPP and NPA, as with the Moro conflict's MN and MI. Doesnt mean separate articles for other current conflicts based on Muslim secessionist or Communist ideas may not be created and branched off from those main articles. Just my twocents ;)--RioHondo (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- 8/7/2008: Redirected to insurgency in the Philippines (this is now at Civil conflict in the Philippines)
- 11/6/2011: Redirected to Islamic insurgency in the Philippines (this is now at Moro conflict)
- 11/12/2011: First prose; describing all insurgencies by Communists in the Philippines throughout history
- 12/29-30/2013: Moved to Insurgency of the Communist Party of the Philippines (now redirects to Communist insurgency in the Philippines), and focus solely on the CPP activities.
- 2/3/2014: Moved to Communist insurgency in the Philippines, then to Insurgency of the New People's Army, then back to Communist insurgency in the Philippines, then back to Insurgency of the Communist Party of the Philippines (status quo, one user did all of these)
- 3/10/2014: Moved to Communist insurgency in the Philippines (due to no consensus of moving it back)
- 8/17/2015: Moved to CPP-NPA-NDF rebellion
- 9/12/2015: Moved to Communist insurgency in the Philippines (due to "The name is much more common")
- 10/14/2015: Moved to CPP-NPA-NDF rebellion (due to "There were two 'Communist' rebellions in the Philippines, the other was the Hukbalahap one which happened in the 1950s, this title is less a...")
- 11/2/2015: Moved to CPP-NPA-NDF conflict (so okay, my personal take on this name was that the CPP, NPA and NDF were fighting each other), then back to CPP-NPA-NDF rebellion
- 2/26/2016: Moved to CPP–NPA–NDF rebellion (notice the endashes!)
- 9/8/2018: I moved this to Communist rebellion in the Philippines as it is a more "natural-sounding name", which it is!
- 5/14/2020: Moved to Communist rebellion (reason: "There is nothing articles," whatever that means), then back to Communist rebellion in the Philippines
So, this article was originally a redirect, then in 2011, the first prose was written about communist insurgencies in the Philippines, then on 2013 it was focused to the activities by the CPP and its different wings. So if the RJs were kicked out of the CPP, and if we're following what the article is about since 2013, they don't belong here. As for rebellion vs. insurgency, I have a very slight preference on "rebellion", but I won't oppose "insurgency". Finally, if you want a mother article, move Communist insurgency in the Philippines to Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines (plural!), then expand that. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yup, thats how it is here in WP. We do primary topics and common names. But again, is Communist conflict/insurgency/rebellion in PH the common name for this conflict currently ravaging the country between govt forces and groups associated with NPA? I believe so, and we have plenty of RSs calling it as such, including this recent government task force created with regards to this conflict. The NPA war certainly takes the primary topic status for this title which may be known to the Philippines as NPA but to the rest of the English speaking world is reported as merely a communist insurgency in PH. But that doesnt mean its the only conflict of this kind in the PH and the article must explain that with links to individual struggles by the more prominent associated groups if necessary. This macro-level overview article could be at the title suggested by HTD to indicate the existence of other related conflicts. But like the Moro conflict article, it should still focus more on the principal actors, not the Maute group or Ansar Khalifa ;). Until this article has been restructured, id still say we keep this article at its current form, being a singular conflict between the govt and NPA.--RioHondo (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- First: Howard the Duck's suggestion "if you want a mother article, move Communist insurgency in the Philippines to Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines (plural!), then expand that." - That article is what I felt this article ought to be, and "armed conflicts" is actually a wonderfully NPOV description. So I shall pursue that with all my heart over the weekend and find some sense of cognitive peace, with some caveats.
- Second: RioHondo's note that this (the one we're on) " article must explain that with links to individual struggles by the more prominent associated groups" is the main caveat through which I feel the previous item can be operationalized. As long as anybody looking for the complete historical overview of Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines can automatically just click through to that page, I think it'll be fine.
- Third: Corollary to all this, I now see "conflict" as the most NPOV descriptor, with "insurrection" being acceptable. As a result of this discussion I no longer support "rebellion" because I now see the connection to the Tagalog phrase "rebeldeng komunista"... and apologies, but it no longer sounds NPOV to me.
I still feel that the title "Communist rebellion in the Philippines" brings to mind the entire history of communism-linked conflict in the Philippines, past present and projected future. Not just the history of the contemporaneous conflict. But if the hatnotes are prominent enough on the page, (they are, by nature. I just feel the caveat has to be stated) then I think the potential damage is diffused, so I can have some peace of mind about it. On a final note, I suppose I should give an apology for being so difficult. But this conflict is so complex and riddled with neutrality issues that I find trying to contextualize it to be an emotional process. And I cannot thank HTD, RioHondo, HueMan1 and pandakekok9 enough for persisting with the discussion. I now contentedly throw my support to suggestion 1 on the condition of suggestion 2, while remaining open to discussion on that third question of conflict/armed conflict vis a vis insurrection vis a vis rebellion. Whew. Thank you. - Chieharumachi (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I can agree with moving to Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines. I as well think that that's what the article is supposed to be. It doesn't make the CPP-NPA-NDF look too small (which I think insurgency and conflict [the singular one] do), and it allows the splinter groups (which I've always been curious about) more spotlight. And it also satisfies the government. Perfect!
As for "insurrection", though it's synonymous with "rebellion", I think it implies that the war is located in the urban cities (NCR comes to mind), when in fact most of the conflict is on the countryside. So I don't think "insurrection" would work here, sorry. pandakekok9 (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have withdrawn my earlier support vote in support of this new consensus from our discussions. You may proceed with the changes we have agreed on. Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines with links to individual articles on New People's Army rebellion, Hukbalahap Rebellion, and the rest that i look forward to discovering. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I hesitate a bit to move a disambiguation page into a new article, but I'll get there. Just trying to figure out how best to execute it, plus... I do have day job work, which gets in the way. :D :P I think in a few hours I shall start a conversation somewhere seeking advice for how to do this. - Chieharumachi (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, informing HTD, RioHondo, HueMan1, and pandakekok9 and that I have moved Communist insurgency in the Philippines to Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines as per agreement, and expanded that disambiguation page as a stub. I have not yet made a final decision how to comment on the proposal, below, of PogingJuan, but I think it is an entirely separate proposition altogether. - Chieharumachi (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I hesitate a bit to move a disambiguation page into a new article, but I'll get there. Just trying to figure out how best to execute it, plus... I do have day job work, which gets in the way. :D :P I think in a few hours I shall start a conversation somewhere seeking advice for how to do this. - Chieharumachi (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to "New People's Army rebellion". While "communist rebellion" has been the common description of it in the media internationally, I believe that New People's Army rebellion could be the best compromise for the following reasons:
- On the point-of-view of the government and the military, it is definitely a "rebellion". But on the other side of the spectrum, for the CPP-NPA and the national democrats/natdems, it is an "armadong pakikibaka" (armed struggle) which is part of the "national democratic revolution" stated in the Philippine Society and Revolution (written by the communist party founder thru an alias). The ultimate goal of "the longest-running armed rebellion in Asia" is to overthrow the Government of the Philippines. So as long as the status quo is existing in power, it will always be a "rebellion" and not a "revolution" or any "sweetened/softened version" of rebellion. Correct, we must commit the WP:NPOV as much as possible, but we have to take note also that there is really no middle ground. Imagine, if Mao Zedong didn't win the mainland China back then, I'm quite sure that the world will call the Chinese Communist Revolution as "Communist rebellion in China".
- It must be taken in consideration that the membership to the Communist Party of the Philippines is supposed to be legal, as the Anti-Subversion Act was already abolished in the 1990s. The reason the Government of the Philippines and the Armed Forces of the Philippines continues to make the Maoist communist party illegal is because of NPA existence. After the Hukbalahap rebellion, you won't hear government attacks against the original Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930.
- In the current political context in the Philippines, it has been always like this: "aktibistang rally nang rally = komunista = NPA". Communists or even just protesters against a government move are unfortunately being equated to as NPA. Even political science, who studies Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought were being accused of being NPA mercenaries. In short, "red-tagging" is rampant. I believe that the page's move to "New People's Army rebellion" will kinda help discern armed communists from a mere communist/socialist ideologue. ~PogingJuan 18:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment A New People's Army rebellion article may be created separately as discussed earlier, but an overview article of the commonly searched and recognizable term of Philippine communist conflict would still be needed and this is where we have agreed to link to all the communism-based insurgencies in PH past and present but with the main focus still on the current NPA conflict, which could be expounded in that separate article to be made.--RioHondo (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)