This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mamasapano clash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Mamasapano clash was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 February 2015. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From reading reliable sources such as BBC and NYTimes, it seems unreasonable to call this am "ambush." Current information seems to point to this as a lack of communication of operations. An ambush would imply that there was a military force actively waiting for the police to conduct this raid. It is my opinion that additional sources beyond the one (Philstar) be consulted, to find a more neutral point of view on the nature of this attack. Please also begin discussion of possible naming of this article away from using the word "ambush." Mamyles ( talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I understand an ambush is a surprise attack conducted on purpose (yes they were actively waiting for the police force else how would they have killed 49 elite policemen?), how can this even come close to pushing a point of view?-- Catlemur ( talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I oppose removing the word ambush from the article, yet we should mention that the militants attacked because they considered the incursion of the police illegal and a brake of previous treaties.-- Catlemur ( talk) 07:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a patrolling administrator has move protected this article due to too many moves. I am personally satisfied with the current name, 2015 Mamasapano clash, however am open to arguments for changing it again. The current name specifies the city rather than the province for precision, and describes the event as a "clash" which is accurate. I think that this is different than a battle, ambush, or raid, and 'misencounter' is wordy and ambiguous. Mamyles ( talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Mamasapano misencounter would suffice for as per WP:COMMONNAME because most people, especially the media, refer to the incident as such. Anime ( talk) 09:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
2015 Mamasapano clash → Mamasapano clash – as per informal discussion above Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 09:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2015 Mamasapano clash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Combined MILF, BIFF, Private militia: 250 (PNP estimate)" to "No official body count" because the 250 estimate that the former SAF chief Napenas had declared is just a specualtion since aside from the fact that there was no actual body count, there was no other evidence to prove his claim. It was not even an official PNP estimate because Napenas statement was just his own personal opinion and doesn't represent the view of the PNP. [1] [2] [3] Stormguys ( talk) 14:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Should Jemaah Islamyah really be in the infobox? I don't think Jemaah Islamiyah as an organization was a participant in the encounter. If we treat JI as a participant, then it would be a two man army composing of Zulkifli Abdhir (Marwan) and Abdul Basit Usman with themselves as commanders? Also Marwan was recently tagged as founder of Khalifa Islamiyah Mindanao KIM a local umbrella group composing of JI, BIFF and Abu Sayyaff and some MILF "rogue" elements. Usman is also tagged as commander for KIM in the Cotabato/Maguindanao theater. How shall we deal with this?-- Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 14:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It is very clear that Zulkifli bin Hir is a member of Jemaah Islamiyah which is a known terrorist group worldwide. He can found his own group and it is his calling then. Still, authorities will attribute him and his lackeys to the Jemaah Islamiyah. -- Anime ( talk) 14:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes Marwan is a member of the Jemaah Islamiyah. There were no other members of the JI to back him up during the operation. I think that the JI, and any other groups which they are members in (except the BIFF which was clearly involved) shouldn't be included in the infobox still. Jemaah Islamiyah was not in Mamasapano at that time as an organization neither is the KIM (except the BIFF). This would be different I think if it was a terrorist offensive, if Marwan and Usman made a bombing and made claims to the attacks and link a certain organization they are members of to the attacks.-- Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 13:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@ 121.54.44.152: I've removed a long list of special forces individuals that died in this event. I do not believe that this article is the proper place to put these. They are not notable, per WP:ONEEVENT, and their names do not aid in understanding or describing this event. It may be more appropriate to put such individuals into a list, such as List of individuals who died in Mamasapano clash, but even then the list would seem to serve no purpose to satisfy WP:MEMORIAL. We already do include all of the names in the image File:Fallen_44_PNP_SAF.jpg, which should be enough. Mamyles ( talk) 15:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted edits that added the Philippine flag to the militia in the infobox. This is because the militia were not fighting under the Philippine flag, or for the Philippine government. Indeed, they were actually fighting against the Philippine flag. Mamyles ( talk) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Show me a piece of evidence that the Ampatuans rebel against the government, just like the MILF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.88.29 ( talk) 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Tell me what is the citizenship of Ampatuan and the rest of his militias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.88.29 ( talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
For those of you editing from the Philippines, it appears that BizNews Asia in its March 2015 issues went into great detail on this incident, including a detailed timeline of what happened and the background leading up to the battle. That magazine said there was a total of 2,000 insurgents involved, including BIFF, MILF, and local criminal gangs. Cla68 ( talk) 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The result should not indicate a victory for the Governmant Forces since it is clear that they are tactically defeated by MILF Forces in the encounter after the neutralization of the target terrorist. The fact that it is titled "Mamasapano Clash" pertained not only to the neutralization of Marwan but also to the Encounter between the SAF Troopers and the MILF Forces. The event in Mamasapano can be divided into two events. The operation on Marwan is a police operation while the encounter with MILF was clearly a military one. If we call this a victory for the Government Forces, we are implying that the SAF Troopers overcome the MILF Forces also, which is not the case. The defeat of the SAF troopers in Mamasapano is so complete that the GRP peace panel needs to intervene for a ceasefire and that the Philippine Army conducted a rescue operation on the pinned down SAF elements. Many people even call this the 2nd Mamasapano Massacre and the SAF themselves and their family are crying for justice. To call it a victory for the SAF, be it Phyrric or not, is misleading. If we consider the police operation on Marwan as successful, then we should be more specific. We can indicate the successful Law Enforcement Operation on the terrorist and then mention also the tactical defeat from the hands of the MILF Forces. If we insist on calling this as a Phyrric victory for the Government, then we should change the title of this page to "Law Enforcement Operation on Marwan", otherwise, it will be prone to misiterpretation. Readers will assume that the SAF defeated the MILF forces in the area since the title "Mamasapano Clash" has its emphasis on the military part of the event. Changing the title to "Law Enforcement Operation on Marwan" will at least shifts the emphasis and thought of the article to the law enforcement operation part of the event and hence, can be called a phyrric victory fo the SAF. But as long the title of the article is "Mamasapano Clash", the emphasis and focus is on the encounter between the SAF and the MILF, and therefore the result should be called "MILF Tacical Victory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.205.247 ( talk) 02:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mamasapano clash. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't find the source that described the event as a "tactical vicory" for the MILF. I am removing the description from the body and the infobox for now. May be added again with RS. In addition to RS, it would need attribution, too, since it would most probably violate NPOV without attribution. Thanks. - Crisantom ( talk) 11:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mamasapano clash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Mamasapano clash was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 February 2015. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From reading reliable sources such as BBC and NYTimes, it seems unreasonable to call this am "ambush." Current information seems to point to this as a lack of communication of operations. An ambush would imply that there was a military force actively waiting for the police to conduct this raid. It is my opinion that additional sources beyond the one (Philstar) be consulted, to find a more neutral point of view on the nature of this attack. Please also begin discussion of possible naming of this article away from using the word "ambush." Mamyles ( talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I understand an ambush is a surprise attack conducted on purpose (yes they were actively waiting for the police force else how would they have killed 49 elite policemen?), how can this even come close to pushing a point of view?-- Catlemur ( talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I oppose removing the word ambush from the article, yet we should mention that the militants attacked because they considered the incursion of the police illegal and a brake of previous treaties.-- Catlemur ( talk) 07:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a patrolling administrator has move protected this article due to too many moves. I am personally satisfied with the current name, 2015 Mamasapano clash, however am open to arguments for changing it again. The current name specifies the city rather than the province for precision, and describes the event as a "clash" which is accurate. I think that this is different than a battle, ambush, or raid, and 'misencounter' is wordy and ambiguous. Mamyles ( talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Mamasapano misencounter would suffice for as per WP:COMMONNAME because most people, especially the media, refer to the incident as such. Anime ( talk) 09:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
2015 Mamasapano clash → Mamasapano clash – as per informal discussion above Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 09:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2015 Mamasapano clash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Combined MILF, BIFF, Private militia: 250 (PNP estimate)" to "No official body count" because the 250 estimate that the former SAF chief Napenas had declared is just a specualtion since aside from the fact that there was no actual body count, there was no other evidence to prove his claim. It was not even an official PNP estimate because Napenas statement was just his own personal opinion and doesn't represent the view of the PNP. [1] [2] [3] Stormguys ( talk) 14:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Should Jemaah Islamyah really be in the infobox? I don't think Jemaah Islamiyah as an organization was a participant in the encounter. If we treat JI as a participant, then it would be a two man army composing of Zulkifli Abdhir (Marwan) and Abdul Basit Usman with themselves as commanders? Also Marwan was recently tagged as founder of Khalifa Islamiyah Mindanao KIM a local umbrella group composing of JI, BIFF and Abu Sayyaff and some MILF "rogue" elements. Usman is also tagged as commander for KIM in the Cotabato/Maguindanao theater. How shall we deal with this?-- Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 14:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It is very clear that Zulkifli bin Hir is a member of Jemaah Islamiyah which is a known terrorist group worldwide. He can found his own group and it is his calling then. Still, authorities will attribute him and his lackeys to the Jemaah Islamiyah. -- Anime ( talk) 14:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes Marwan is a member of the Jemaah Islamiyah. There were no other members of the JI to back him up during the operation. I think that the JI, and any other groups which they are members in (except the BIFF which was clearly involved) shouldn't be included in the infobox still. Jemaah Islamiyah was not in Mamasapano at that time as an organization neither is the KIM (except the BIFF). This would be different I think if it was a terrorist offensive, if Marwan and Usman made a bombing and made claims to the attacks and link a certain organization they are members of to the attacks.-- Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 13:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@ 121.54.44.152: I've removed a long list of special forces individuals that died in this event. I do not believe that this article is the proper place to put these. They are not notable, per WP:ONEEVENT, and their names do not aid in understanding or describing this event. It may be more appropriate to put such individuals into a list, such as List of individuals who died in Mamasapano clash, but even then the list would seem to serve no purpose to satisfy WP:MEMORIAL. We already do include all of the names in the image File:Fallen_44_PNP_SAF.jpg, which should be enough. Mamyles ( talk) 15:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted edits that added the Philippine flag to the militia in the infobox. This is because the militia were not fighting under the Philippine flag, or for the Philippine government. Indeed, they were actually fighting against the Philippine flag. Mamyles ( talk) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Show me a piece of evidence that the Ampatuans rebel against the government, just like the MILF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.88.29 ( talk) 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Tell me what is the citizenship of Ampatuan and the rest of his militias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.88.29 ( talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
For those of you editing from the Philippines, it appears that BizNews Asia in its March 2015 issues went into great detail on this incident, including a detailed timeline of what happened and the background leading up to the battle. That magazine said there was a total of 2,000 insurgents involved, including BIFF, MILF, and local criminal gangs. Cla68 ( talk) 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The result should not indicate a victory for the Governmant Forces since it is clear that they are tactically defeated by MILF Forces in the encounter after the neutralization of the target terrorist. The fact that it is titled "Mamasapano Clash" pertained not only to the neutralization of Marwan but also to the Encounter between the SAF Troopers and the MILF Forces. The event in Mamasapano can be divided into two events. The operation on Marwan is a police operation while the encounter with MILF was clearly a military one. If we call this a victory for the Government Forces, we are implying that the SAF Troopers overcome the MILF Forces also, which is not the case. The defeat of the SAF troopers in Mamasapano is so complete that the GRP peace panel needs to intervene for a ceasefire and that the Philippine Army conducted a rescue operation on the pinned down SAF elements. Many people even call this the 2nd Mamasapano Massacre and the SAF themselves and their family are crying for justice. To call it a victory for the SAF, be it Phyrric or not, is misleading. If we consider the police operation on Marwan as successful, then we should be more specific. We can indicate the successful Law Enforcement Operation on the terrorist and then mention also the tactical defeat from the hands of the MILF Forces. If we insist on calling this as a Phyrric victory for the Government, then we should change the title of this page to "Law Enforcement Operation on Marwan", otherwise, it will be prone to misiterpretation. Readers will assume that the SAF defeated the MILF forces in the area since the title "Mamasapano Clash" has its emphasis on the military part of the event. Changing the title to "Law Enforcement Operation on Marwan" will at least shifts the emphasis and thought of the article to the law enforcement operation part of the event and hence, can be called a phyrric victory fo the SAF. But as long the title of the article is "Mamasapano Clash", the emphasis and focus is on the encounter between the SAF and the MILF, and therefore the result should be called "MILF Tacical Victory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.205.247 ( talk) 02:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mamasapano clash. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't find the source that described the event as a "tactical vicory" for the MILF. I am removing the description from the body and the infobox for now. May be added again with RS. In addition to RS, it would need attribution, too, since it would most probably violate NPOV without attribution. Thanks. - Crisantom ( talk) 11:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)