Talk:March across Samar

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
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) 12:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on March across Samar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402103747/http://www.bibingka.com/phg/balangiga/default.htm to http://www.bibingka.com/phg/balangiga/default.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.filipinoamericans.net/balangiga_massacre.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Tone
Reading through this article, its tone is very problematic. Off-bat, I can cite a few: 1. It does not reference the March across Samar as part of a larger war being waged between the Philippines and America 2. It makes mention of animist tribes without mentioning that the bulk of the Filipino resistance is (was until 1899 when guerrilla tactics were endorsed by the Republic) organized under conventional means. 3. It continually refers to the Filipino forces as rebels and not as agents of an invaded state

This article needs a lot of work, is what I'm saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.126.152.34 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Apportionment of content between articles
I looked at today and noticed this content:

Other possible concerns aside, it seems to me that most of that content has a closer relationship to this article than to the Battle of Balangiga article. IMO, this needs attention. I'll try to participate, but I'm really busy at present with off-wiki concerns.

Discussion? (I'll mention on the talk page of that other article that I've raised this here) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Very POV lead
The title itself is already problematic, but it's especially inappropriate that the lead mentions all these minutiae about the operation and the few US soldiers that died but not the thousands of Filipinos that were killed. Certainly this should be the main focus of the article. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)