Talk:Manila hostage crisis/Archive 1

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.

---

Fact-check

• The hostage-taker's name is Rolando Mendoza, not Reynaldo.
• His position is senior inspector, not senior police officer (SPO) 2; his brother is the SPO2.

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• As for the extortion, I'd look into this if that was the right "case." I've seen reports that there was another case. The Kalaw case may not have been drug-related. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration

This article and its Chinese version of this article both contain information independent of each other, partly because the Chinese version is taken largely from news sources in Hong Kong, whereas the English version is taken largely from news sources in Manila. I'll try to translate the currently non-overlapping information to make the articles more complete. --Deryck C. 15:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

hey, i've already made a few edits with verifiable sources taken from the live coverage footage of and the coverage of local Hong Kong television news reports. however, i've yet to add citations and references to relevant information as i don't know where i can accurately quote television news report from online.:S can someone help? as the info may be removed or altered due to lack of reliable evidence and sources, thanks.

--Zigil Parcelforse (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedic!

This is not a news site, it's an encyclopaedic article. I have removed several phrases and wordings that belong on an entertainment website, perhaps, but not here. I will check back every once in a while to clean it up a bit. Also, please use the ',' to join sentences and not ';'-- it's messy to clean up. : ) Mfhulskemper (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

phrases and wording that belonged to an entertainment website? i've already mentioned above that my primary sources come from television news reports and syndicated live covereage; not websites. so please specify and justify your course of action on removing said phrases. :S

secondly; did you not know that the semi-colon- ; is used in situations where information pertaining tothe subject matter of the sentence; but not directly relevant to the main points of the sentence; is spliced into the sentence like i just demonstrated here. the semi-colon is there to make the complex sentence easier to understand by separating and demonstrating what i just said- interdependent statements.

i only used the semi-colon for this purpose only, so please reverse the relevant cleanup (if you had other justified cleanups then of course that's ok)unless you have any grounds for doing so; then give whatever reason, grounds and rationale you have for removing them. =]

i.e. (if there were any formatting rules that i had violated because of that, please specify; e.g. certain use of the semi-colons.)

--Zigil Parcelforse (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 203.59.206.208, 24 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Seven were found alive 203.59.206.208 (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

pls revert vandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_Manila_hostage_crisis&diff=380617768&oldid=380614842

this is vandalism. how come nobody noticed that?--Teamtripa (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I undid it earlier. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Death Count

Sources vary on how many are dead in this crisis. GMA Network said 9 are dead, but Hong Thai's list of murdered tourists only had 8 names on it. Until it is clear, can we say that 8 to 9 hostages are dead? Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 05:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The NetEase now say it is 10 (The number of death now rise to 10). Waiting for the confirmation.JeanPiaget (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus Driver

According to the current text, the driver got loose somewhere before the rapid-fire shooting and police assault was at 8:18, and the shooting of the hostages was at 8:00. The driver himself apparently thought they were all dead already when he left. But apparently Iamherb encountered a version with these events in opposite order. It's an important point to nail down. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The basic order was, by nightime:

1. Around 6pm Isko Moreno arrived with the letter from the ombudsman
2. Police "arrested" Mendoza's brother
3. Around 8pm The bus moved (for some reason this was removed)
4. Mendoza went berserk and killed 2 Chinese
5. The driver escaped via the window and told everyone that all are dead.
6. Police began smashing windows with sledgehammers threw the tear gas canisters and opened the emergency exit
7. Around 9pm Shots were fired from inside the bus
8. Police went inside the bus and rescued what's left

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline?

The Chinese version of the page has a detailed timeline. Perhaps we should translate it and put it into the English version to improve the article. I am a violinist (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a timeline would be useful but would you present it as a list (like in many timeline articles) or in paragraphs? Strange Passerby (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally would prefer prose over a timeline; dot points are much quicker to read, but the article would overall appear much better if prose was used. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Am translating various pieces of information from the Chinese version's timeline into this article. --Deryck C. 01:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese netizen reactions

May be relevant, or perhaps not, but generally netizen reactions are highly critical at the Philippine Police, with many criticising how they handled the situation, and their overall ability at decision-making and tactics.

• Fauna, August 24, 2010, Philippines Hostage Crisis Ends With Many Dead, Reactions, ChinaSMACK

The above link is a rough summary of a few boards on NetEase and KDS. There were also similar boards on Tianya, Mop and QQ.

• Hong Kong-based forums were filled with hate-speech towards the Philippines, as with news websites with "Comments" sections.
• Similar groups were also created on Facebook by individuals from Hong Kong: within 2 hours of the shooting, the group "菲律賓特別冇種部隊" (The Philippine Police does not have a Special Tactics Unit) had 35,000 members.
• Although somewhat irrelevant, Philippine trolling activity increased on 4chan /int/ and Pinoychan /n/ following the incident.

The above may not meet WP:RS and WP:V standards, but if anyone wishes, I might search for more possible sources regarding general reactions within Hong Kong and mainland China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Filipino netizen reaction is essentially the same, even to the outright ridicule of the MPD. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll say that 菲律賓特別冇種部隊 is better translated to something like "Philipine Specially Inept Forces". Sigh. _dk (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think '冇種' means 'infertility', so I guess your translation is close enough. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

'冇種' in Hong Kong Cantonese actually means 'no guts', or 'no balls', i.e. 'no courage'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.77.36 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I certify that. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Filipinos had devised new meanings for "SWAT": Sobrang Wala Akong Training (I absolutely do not have training), Sugod, Wait Atras Tayo (Charge, Wait Let's Retreat), etc. It's common knowledge here that the police are inept, but the SWAT teams would've been better-trained.

Note that we should be adding this only if the mainstream media picks this up. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We have one source with similar contents so far: "On Twitter, one person referred to the Philippine SWAT team involved as "Sorry We Aren't Trained."" (Wall Street Journal) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • according to HKTV report, the Filipino SWAT received training from Israel and America... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Must have been police outside the Manila Police District. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Or they might have been members of the PNP Special Action Force, which can only be called by the president if the SWAT teams are not up to the task. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) A major topic right now on local message boards (like PinoyExchange) is why the President did not call a media blackout. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We're starting to get more coverage:

• Li Yuan, August 24, 2010, 2:58 PM HKT, China’s Netizens Criticize Crisis Response, Wall Street Journal
• Brittany Hite, August 24, 2010, Hong Kong Mourns Manila Hostage Deaths, WSJ (slightly covers HK online response)

Let's wait for a bit more. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Here's some more: Criticism of Philippine Response Grows, Aquino's Facebook page flooded with complaints on hostage crisis. This is pretty interesting: Spurious letter from hostage survivor sparks online speculation. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's another series of netizen comments translated:

• Fauna, 25 August 2010, Filipinos Taking Photos At Hostage Scene, Chinese Reactions, ChinaSMACK

Same site as the one above at the top. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Jackie Chan draws flak for tweets on Manila hostage-taking –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice find there. I am thinking - should we eventually form a "internet response" section somewhere within the article later on, to document all these? or would that be borderline WP:OR? We're also starting to find photoshop contest type threads on Chinese forums and 4chan - regarding the schoolgirls taking photos of the bus, they are being superimposed on images of war in Lebanon, flooding in Pakistan, riots in Denmark, indonestian protests, 9/11, the Haiti Earthquake, etc. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of grammatical errors

There are lots of minor grammatical errors in the article (e.g. "The survivor[,] Mrs. Leung[,] bemoaned [at] the length of time before the police stormed the bus."). However, I'm prevented from editing them because the article appears to be locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.221.125 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have done the right thing by reporting here. As this is a rather new article and fairly 'busy' errors should, theoretically, not last too long. An alternative is to put {{editsemiprotected}} here on the talkpage, and say exactly what needs editing and exactly how it should look when corrected, which is part of the 'editsemiprotected' template instructions you will see when you use this template. See also {{editsemiprotected}}.220.101 talk^\Contribs 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

List of victims

the table just died. can someone come in and fix it? can't make heads or tails out of the structure. Paladin.cross (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the tables, but don't know how to do colouring. Perhaps somebody would like to colour code the 3 different categories of victims according to their fate. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • The current table is good enough without color. Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think there is a huge BLP problem with this list. These people were just innocent bystanders and there is no reason whatsoever to list their names here. Enough editors are watching this page, so I hope this list will be removed ASAP. --Crusio (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The Chinese Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a problem, although one would suggest that they have different policies. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have gone ahead and removed the list of victims. Like Crusio pointed out above, there is no reason why all their names should be listed, that too with such detail. The only thing they had to do with the incident is that they were the victims and that is quite clear. There is no reason why we should describe each and everyone's identity, age or "status". Torque3000^Talk 12:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe I've missed something, but I don't see which part of WP:BLP this violates. Please elaborate. AFAICT, all mentions, names etc are concise, factual, non-trivial, and well sourced; the injured and dead are members of about 3 families, so I really fail to see the problem. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm indifferent, but see WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. (That said, that guideline is always ignored). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The family connections are extremely relevant and thoroughly reported, and failure to mention same makes it a material omission, IMHO. I accept that their names need not be mentioned. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Doesn't BLP only apply to living persons, hence BLP? A list of the deceased wouldn't be in violation with BLP, would it? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Please, for the love of God, read guidelines before using them to censor useful information. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL says "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Are the victims here friends, relatives, or acquaintances? Was this set this up like a roadside memorial? No, it was set up under the strange concept that an article about a murder ought to say who was killed. Wnt (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• I strongly agree with Wnt. If you must, then you can include some IMPORTANT facts from the table (maybe that the youngest victim was a four year old?). But you cant list out each and every victim. Some things in the table aren't even up to wikipedia standards- "status: hit in the head by hard object". How is that information important for anyone apart from the unfortunate victim's family and his doctor? Also, see point number 3 here. Torque3000^Talk 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  "Hit in the head by hard object" was the phrase used by the hospital to describe this particular victim. It was said in response to previous reports that claim he was shot in the head. --Deryck C. 06:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  You may rephrase it if you like. [1] This source says the doctor think his head was hit by the gun handle. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  Incase you didn't read the link- "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."And another thing-"Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."(stated here). Clearly, the list goes against Wikipedia's standards of Notability. We have already cited many instructions which discourage this sort of data. Why do you insist on including the list? Torque3000^Talk 13:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether the table is notable or not is only your personal opinion. The list is still vital to this article and most reader may want to learn how the vitims are connected and their more specific data as long as not violating wp:BLP. The status and identity also conforms the requisite of "containing sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article". Also WP:BLP1E only instructs to not create one single article specifically for a low-profile individual. It doesn't rule out that we organize a group of individuals' data into one article when they have a strong, notable connection (this incident) to each other. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that putting the family relationships in the table made it too large and was in many cases wholly unnecessary, since the Chinese surnames come first anyway. Besides, the relationships were unsourced in the table, and there were too many "a father", "a wife" type relationships to wholly understand who was who. I would suggest that the current sentence in the text should be expanded a little more to describe the relationships in detail, but I don't think this should be in the table. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• It seems the identities of "Yeung Yee Wa" and "Yeung Yee Kam" in the Victims table have been switched: Yeung Yee Wa should be the mother and Yeung Yee Kam the aunt. I've cross-checked with many other Chinese news articles (including the Chinese versions of this wikipedia entry). Please correct. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.57.136 (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Problem addressed. --Deryck C. 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Seems like the SCMP got it wrong. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• I changed the Status for Masa Tse (謝廷駿) as "allegedly killed by Police" as investigation is still ongoing and ballistics information needs to verify this. Daimengrui (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would remove it altogether until it is definitive. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional column of common names

I have just reverted, for the second time, the insertion of an additional column in the table by Hoisin. I believe that there is actually ample information in the table already, and we do not to need an additional column for the victim's name. Furthermore, it squeezes the width of the other columns, making it more difficult to read if you are not on a large monitor. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to simply eschew the table and convert all the information into continuous prose? It will also provide a good form of presentation when the autopsy reports come out in the future. The 5 family names would serve easily as section headings. --Deryck C. 05:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have a problem here that we need to remove the table. This sort of information is typically displayed in tabular form, and also lends itself to easy updating. There is ample space for when the autopsy results are published – we can surely incorporate a brief phrase about the findings of each of the casualties into the 'status' column. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --Deryck C. 07:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

British nationals?

Should probably wait until more than one source picks this up, but the BBC is reporting that the Foreign Office is claiming two Brits were among the siege survivors. Strange Passerby (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty common for Hong Kong citizens to carry British passports, as should be the case here, I imagine. _dk (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, can it be so certain that all nine who died were "Chinese nationals" as the lede claims? Strange Passerby (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

China does not recognise dual nationality in its citizens. It considers foreign passports of Hong Kong people to have the status of 'travel document' only, and not one pertaining to nationality. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The passport in question is British National (Overseas) passport. Also, does the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China apply to residents within the Hong Kong SAR? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does, and the PRC does not recognize BN(O) passports. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be surprising if some of them were holding actual British passports (and not BNOs). Relatedly, apparently five of the hostages were holding Canadian passports. _dk (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

From a Hong Kong perspective here: "Hong Kong" is not a nationality. Individual Hongkongers are of various nationalities, however any "permanent resident of Hong Kong" (it is in every sense a "citizen" with legal protection and right of abode, except that Hong Kong isn't a country) without citizenship in any other country is automatically a Chinese citizen. Common non-Chinese nationalities of Hongkongers include British, Australian, Canadian and American. --Deryck C. 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to Ohconfucius: Hongkongers with foreign passports simply aren't Chinese nationals. End of story. They are only foreign nationals with the full right of abode in Hong Kong. That many Hongkongers with foreign citizenship also claim a HKSAR passport (essentially hiding their dual nationality) is a different question... --Deryck C. 17:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But aren't Hongkongers who acquired British citizenship through the BNSS and BN(O)s not considered foreigners, but Chinese citizens? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BNSS granted some (by some I mean some 1% of Hong Kong's population in 1995) full British (and therefore EU) citizenship, therefore Hongkongers who acquired british citizenship through BNSS are considered as foreign citizens with the full right of abode in Hong Kong. BN(O)s are not full British citizens: everyone born in Hong Kong before 1997 are automatically eligible for BN(O). Since BN(O)s are permanent residents of Hong Kong but not full British citizens, unless they hold another nationality (which some do, especially common for Hongkongers of mixed race) BN(O)s are automatically Chinese citizens. (yes it's complicated) --Deryck C. 06:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant from the Chinese point of view. But we're digressing. ;) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's a dispute in using "Chinese nationals," let's use "Hong Kong residents" instead.

The Leung Family are Canadian Nationals, whereas the two elderly couples who were released are British Nationals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.77.36 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the question of dual-citizenship for HK residents, see Nationality_Law_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Hong_Kong_and_Macau. Normally, Chinese nationals lose their Chinese citizenship if they naturalise and become foreign citizen elsewhere. But through special resolution they have made an exception for Hong Kong and Macau residents. (well not really, they said if they acquire foreign "right-of-abode" just so they appear not to have made an exception) They won't lose their Chinese citizenship but their foreign citizenship won't be recognised in HK, Macau and China either. Unless of course they declare to renounce Chinese citizenship. --Kvasir (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Expert's reaction

Would just want to get your reaction first on this one before adding it up.

Philippine Bus Assault Risky: French Expert

http://news.ph.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4291331

also, we might want to add this one out at the Aftermath section

Philippine Police Admits Blunders On Deadly Hostage Ordeal

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20100824-233571.html

Flamerounin (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of police "assault"

Has there been any press comment about the police assault. Watching it live on TV yesterday it looked to me like a pretty pathetic attempt - has the press taken up this slant? – ukexpat (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, just read the post above. The article should deal with this aspect of the events. – ukexpat (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything within the article must be verified with reliable sources, to avoid synthesis/original research. Until there is an official report, we cannot place any specific criticisms on the assault. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the requirement that we wait for the official report. Per WP:V, criticisms (and praises, if any) can be included as long as they are published by reliable sources. The two sources above would probably qualify as reliable sources. Craddocktm (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Per craddock. Of course, space should be given to the official report too, and any reaction thereto, when it is released. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reactions

It seems to me the current section on Reactions focuses solely on how different parties reacted after the bloodshed. For example, the Hong Kong government criticized the handling of the incident after the death toll surfaced.

But I'm concerned that no coverage is given to reaction BEFORE the bloodshed. For example:[2]. Is it a good idea to incorporate such reaction into the existing section? But then chronologically it would not take sense.Craddocktm (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Depending on what precisely they were, I'd ightt them in the relevant section: 'Boarding', 'Negotiations', 'Assault' --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

It's pretty poor in places...this article is on English Wikipedia and needs to be written by native English speakers. For instance in the table what is "lightly injured"? Er there's lightly salted, lightly covered, lightly spoken, but the use of "lightly" suggests a level choice on the matter. It makes the hostages ordeal sound quite ridiculous!! It would be more accurate to use "slightly injured". Likewise the obtuse use of the word status, or phrases like "a wife of Chan etc" is wrong: how many fathers or mothers is one person supposed to have?

The intro packs so much info into its three lines it's like a mouth with too many teeth. This is how a native English speaker would write it:

The 2010 Manila hostage crisis occurred when a dismissed police officer took over a tourist bus in front of the Quirino Grandstand in Rizal Park, Manila, Philippines on August 23, 2010. Rolando Mendoza (10 January 1955 - 23 August 2010), a disgruntled former senior inspector from the Manila Police District, took 25 people hostage in an attempt to get his job back.
After gunshots were heard on the bus, police launched an assaulted to rescue the hostages. Mendoza and eight Chinese nationals from Hong Kong died in the subsequent shootout.

It might be English but it's not native English in either American or British vernaculars... needs work. Unfortunately as noted by another IP, we can't because we are blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.4.232 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your input. Additionally, would you consider creating an account? Your contributions on this article would be greatly appreciated. Once you have an account, you may feel free to boldly edit the article contents as required. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They will need to request confirmed status before they can edit it. –xeno^talk 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't protected, the anon can edit it at will. Register a Wikimedia account is recommended though. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, so this article IS protected. If that's the case, you should register an acount an using your own user page for sandbox purpose. After you're done, you can tell us to copy your text to the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the article necessarily need to be in British or American English? As far as I know, Philippine English is very similar to American English, save for some changes in vocabulary. After all, Wikipedia is not solely for Britons or Americans. However, I agree that the article does need work. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why, from reading the article, I had assumed it was in American English ;-) There's no need to get stuck down with the cleanup yet, as there's still much information filtering through – debriefings, autopsies, investigations – that time will come when the dust has settled. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I've forgotten to put the protection template on. --Deryck C. 01:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Page moved

I've moved this page to its current title (Manila hostage crisis), as I am not aware of any other hostage crises in Manila, so it doesn't seem necessary to use the year to disambiguate. If I'm wrong about this, please comment below and the page can be moved back. Robofish (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

there was an incident a couple of years ago when several mutinous soldiers threatened to blow up a building. It could be misunderstood with that.--DAI (Δ) 18:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's either Oakwood mutiny or the Manila Peninsula rebellion; both of which happened at Makati; one instance this would've been confused with is a similar hostage-taking within the vicinity in 2007 that ended peacefully. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just want to point out that 'changing/moving' the name means that the article view statistics are split between the names. As we are discussing a move here it might be a good idea to state explicitly what the name was, though you have stated it in the edit summary(2010 Manila hostage crisis).
• As for what to call it, what are the media calling it? I would have thought "2010 Manila Bus Hostage Crisis/Event/Controversy-(add dramatic suffix)" would be accurate and help avoid name changes? 220.101 talk^\Contribs 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• The media have been reporting a number of prior hostage crises in Manila, and saying it's one of the hostage capitals of the world. I'm sure the articles just haven't been created yet, that's all. Best to put it back. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In 2007, Jun Dugat hostaged a bus load of children to express his anger at the government...Kouji nakajima omori (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/School_children_and_teachers_taken_hostage_in_Philippines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kouji nakajima omori (talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If there was a feel-good hostage-taking, then that's one. He had no intention to harm the children (who studied at his own daycare center) and everyone got out alive. That was the first time n modern history somebody did that (a bus hi-jacking) in the Philippines. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For those who really want to follow the rest of the media on naming: all major Hong Kong newspapers described the incident as "massacre" or "slaughter" at some point. --Deryck C. 05:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan, it also only applies the word "crisis" for its title. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

While there are certainly other hostage-taking incidents in Manila, I think this topic should get the primary meaning since it's the only one that sparked a foreign relations row. So I agree with removing the "2010" in the article name. --seav (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate fact

I would like to correct what you have posted regarding the hostage crisis:

"After gunshots were heard on the bus, police launched an assault to rescue the hostages. Mendoza and eight Hong Kong residents died in the subsequent shootout."

Mendoza died in the shootout, not all 8 Hongkong residents died because of the shootout, some of them were killed by Mendoza before the shootout occurred. Please correct this inaccuracy for the sake of fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.141.178 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback IP-'58'. Realise that this early in the investigation (if it has really even started!) just about anything in the article could change as information becomes available (the article is only about 40 hours old). We only have published reports to go on. Do you have a reliable source and verifiable source for what you are stating here, "some of them were killed by Mendoza before the shootout occurred"? (hopefully the existing text has a reliable/verifiable source!) It is likely that there is no certainty about who died when, this will take detailed forensic investigation to determine. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not long elapsed between the firing of the first shot and the end of the siege (as far as one can tell from the video footage). Thus, arguably all the shots in the hostage crisis can be regarded as one round of shootout, and there is no need to say anyone was shot dead by Rolando Mendoza "before the shootout" specifically. Although I do concur that there isn't much open fire between the police and Mendoza; Mendoza was killed by a sniper, and most of Mendoza's shots were aimed at targets within the coach. I'll try to rewrite that paragraph later. --Deryck C. 05:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Beware of Original Research! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why I didn't put all that into the article straight away! --Deryck C. 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just a little worried you were watching the vid and putting what you believed you saw in the article which, AFAIK, would be OR. And OR is bad, evil and very naughty ! 220.101 talk^\Contribs03:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Travisyip, 25 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} ===Assault===

As night fell, both sides grew increasingly impatient and wary over the prospect of a prolonged stalemate – no significant negotiation progress had been made. Mendoza was thought to have fired warning shots as he saw his brother and son being hauled away by the police. Mendoza claimed on live radio that he had killed two hostages. After Mendoza witnessed the arrest of his brother via the TV and radio on board the bus which was covered live by the media, he became distressed and ordered the police via radio to release his brother, or else he would start executing hostages.

The first shots were fired inside the bus at about 7:25 pm, and police mounted an assault on the bus at around 7:45 pm Subsequent shots were fired at the rear of the cabin, producing several bullet holes, cracks and indents in the window towards the rear right of the bus; hostages were heard screaming. After an attempt was made to drive the coach away from the scene, police marksmen fired several rounds to deflate the tires. The driver, who was earlier reported to be handcuffed to the steering wheel, escaped after more shots were fired and told the police that all hostages on the tour bus were killed. He later admitted that his assumption was based on Mendoza firing sporadically at all the hostages.

In heavy rain, the MPD assaulted the bus. At 8:18 p.m., rapid fire was heard. The policemen broke some windows of the bus with sledgehammers and tried to enter the bus, but were repelled by threat. The attempt to board the coach lasted for about an hour. Thereafter, four tear gas canisters were thrown into the bus as police struggled to open the door. None of the policemen knew about the emergency door opener, which would had saved them time and effort. An attempt to break open the door using a tied rope attached to a police vehicle resulted in the rope being snapped. According to a female hostage by the surname of Leung who spoke to the media reporters after the crisis was over, Mendoza started shooting randomly at the hostages at around 8:00 p.m.

For the weapon of choice in the assault, MPD gave up to use daily used equipment that suitable for Close quarters combat, such as Glock pistol and Floro MK-9 Submachine gun; MPD changed to use M16 rifle that same as the Hostage-taker's gun and rounds.

Mendoza died after sustaining a gunshot wound to the head. Police marksmen who had taken up positions around the bus earlier in the day claimed credit for shooting Mendoza. According to presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda, four more hostages were confirmed dead; Interior and Local Government secretary Jesse Robredo said six hostages were confirmed alive and not seriously injured. The fate of the other hostages was unknown at the time. Two other people outside the bus, a 47-year-old TVB news crew engineer and a child bystander who was hit in the waist, were reportedly wounded by stray bullets.

Travisyip (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner. Copying the entire existing section into the talk page is not useful. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• the main change requested is to add the following paragraph:

For the weapon of choice in the assault, MPD gave up to use daily used equipment that suitable for Close quarters combat, such as Glock pistol and Floro MK-9 Submachine gun; MPD changed to use M16 rifle that same as the Hostage-taker's gun and rounds.

Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Which unfortunately is very poorly written to the point of incomprehensibility! I'll try to interpret it.

Original

For the weapon of choice in the assault, MPD gave up to use daily used equipment that suitable for Close quarters combat, such as Glock pistol and Floro MK-9 Submachine gun; MPD changed to use M16 rifle that same as the Hostage-taker's gun and rounds.

Changes  Note: Bold altered=text, Struck thru=deleted text

For The weapons of choiceused in the assault, by the MPD gave up to use daily used equipment that were not suitable for Close quarters combat, such asInstead of Glock pistols and Floro MK-9 Submachine guns; the MPD changed to used M16 rifle thatthe same as the Hostage-taker's gun. and rounds

Final

The weapons used in the assault by the MPD were not suitable for close quarters combat. Instead of Glock pistols and Floro MK-9 submachine guns the MPD used M16 rifles, the same as the hostage-taker's gun.

Which seems to make sense. Also seems rather POV and I would not rely on this type of information coming from a newspaper.

• Personally though, I agree that M-16 rifles are probably not suitable for "close combat" of this type as the projectile from a 5.56 mm cartridge may well penetrate one person/ or the bus, and strike another person as appears to have happened with the 2 wounded bystanders.

• Also, the length of the weapon in the confines of a bus seems (my POV) to be a problem. Short, 9mm calibre submachine guns such as the Heckler & Koch MP5 seem to be standard equipment world-wide for such situations. ie. British SAS and Police, German GSG 9, FBI Hostage Rescue Team etc. (See List of MP5 users) Comments? 220.101 talk^\Contribs 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The MPD's SWAT Team is more in line with a local police's SWAT Team, like LAPD SWAT Team; the Philippine equivalent of the SAS, GSG and FBI's hostage rescue team is the Philippine National Police Special Action Force, which can only be called upon by the President if the local police department is not up to the task (in the Senate investigation earlier today, the MPD said they are able to handle the situation.). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus and coach

I say we have to use only one term, and bus should be the right one. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's not a bus in the normal sense of the word, and I disagree with using it to describe the vehicle in question. I say either we use 'tour bus', or 'coach'. Coach is one word, while bus is two words, so I prefer to go with the simpler. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • How about a tour bus, then use bus throughout the article? I don't think coach is appropriate, since, according to our articles, the main difference between the two is that coaches "have a luggage hold separate from the passenger cabin and are normally equipped with facilities required for longer trips including comfortable seats and sometimes a toilet," and the vehicle that was used did not have those amenities, while a bus is a more general term. The passengers left their luggage elsewhere, and they were on their way to fetch it when Mendoza boarded the vehicle. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Works for me. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Leung

A female survivor by the name of Leung (Mrs. Leung) is repeatedly mentioned throughout the article. Yet there is no Mrs. Leung on the passenger list. Who removed the familial relations column from the hostage table? --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 02:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• She's Amy NG, the only one of the 5 Canadians (all from the same family) who suffered no physical injuries. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus driver who got out

A quick glance over the article did not seem to indicate any mention of the driver who got out just before the assault began. He was heard on television as saying something like "they're all dead". Anyone missing that info will not have proper background context into what precipitated the assault. Lambanog (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This was previously in the article, and the fact that the bus moved at a short moment before/during/after the first shots were heard. I dunno how they disappeared. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

in the Hostages section - do a search for 'Lubang' Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That part has to be moved back to the assault section, as what an anon said in #Bus Driver, the escape of the driver affected how the police handled the assault. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline for the sequence of events is important for this article. I would recommend using this as a reference: Massacre in nation's heart: Timeline of Manila bus siege. Lambanog (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 154.20.8.74, 26 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The name of the youngest hostage in the table of hostages "Fu Chang Yin" should be changed to "Fu Chung Yin", which, with reference to the Chinese characters beside, matches the usual English translation for this particular Chinese character in Hong Kong according to its Cantonese pronunciation.

Further verification can be found in the following link:

http://74.124.194.219/network/victims-remains-survivors-return-hong-kong-today-1106-am

Thank you.

154.20.8.74 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• thank you. now corrected. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Assault sequence of events

There is information in the Assault section that is contradictory and has no provided sources. I do not feel such information belongs in the article unless they can be properly sourced or referenced. I will move the items here until a source can be found. Lambanog (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed:
"According to a female hostage by the surname of Leung who spoke to the media reporters after the crisis was over, Mendoza started shooting randomly at the hostages at around 8:00 p.m."

Why was this removed? It was on citation #27. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Went back and checked the source you referred to and yes it can be used as the basis for the statement. However, it introduces ambiguities and is possibly misleading. Did she mean to say that Mendoza started shooting for the first time at 8:00 pm? Or was this another round of shooting at the passengers? Was the assault already underway during the described shooting or had they not started yet? What does "around 8:00 pm" mean? Depending how strictly one interprets that phrase does that mean 7:21 pm falls within the "around 8:00 pm" period or not? There is no corroborating details that allows one to place it in the context of the whole sequence aside from the "around 8:00 pm" and the SWAT action but was that the initial assault or a renewed effort? Considering she was under duress its unclear how reliable her time awareness was. The description I have used has both a witness narrative (the driver's) and a reporters' narrative corroborating their sequence of events and the time. It's possible Ms. Leung is describing a separate shooting incident that occurred after the one the driver describes but it's unclear. If there are other sources that can make a distinction clear then it should be included. Currently I'm not sure it should be, but am open to the views of others. Lambanog (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to spoon-feed the readers. If I were a hostage I wouldn't be checking the exact time some psycho started shooting on us. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy on this point is very important. The way it was written previously one could be forgiven for thinking the police rushed in for no reason. Judging from some of the things some people on forums I have seen have said, it is not clear to everyone that the police assaulted the bus because the gunmen had started killing people. According to information the police had, the gunman had started killing people at 7:21 and that's why they started surrounding the bus at 7:37. Saying Mendoza only started killing people at 8:00 is a different story with vastly different implications. What occurred on the bus after the driver left only the HK survivors can say but it's unclear from what I've seen, not that I've seen anything more from them aside from this ambiguous account from Ms. Leung. Lambanog (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't be exactly accurate unfortunately. There were gunshots by 8:04 -- which should be somewhere in the vicinity of "around 8:00." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 154.20.8.74, 26 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is still a "lightly injured" to be corrected to "slightly injured" in the victim table for Amy Leung.

Thank you.

154.20.8.74 (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection expiry date discussion

HTD raised on my talk page that this article should be semi-protected one-off for another 10 days or so, rather than extending the protection on a daily basis. The rationale is that the event is probably going to stay in the media spotlight for a few extra days rather than something like one day. I understand that our respectable IP editors may be unhappy about this, although I'm sure they'll have our lovely vandals in mind as they comment. What does everyone think? --Deryck C. 10:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. We already have 2 precious IP editors trying to contribute this article constructively. And the ZH version receives nearly no vandalism or edit war records as far as I can tell. If the rationale for extending the protection period is because of being "hot" in the media, that should be a full-protect, not semi-protect. Actually I have never heard such rationale up until this article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If they were really motivated to edit, there is nothing precluding anons from creating an account and getting confirmed. I can understand Howard's motivation for this: some Filipino anons can be very problematic to deal with at times, especially when all they do is vandalize (vandalism is a major problem on the Philippine Wikipedias, and most of this can be traced to anonymous IPs). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lift the protection, pretty much for the reasons given by Sameboat. Preemptive protection should not happen at all. We did just fine at July 2009 Ürümqi riots, as there were enough of us to quickly revert vandalism, and there were admins there to execute range blocks on IPs where necessary, just like there are here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case I'll leave the protection to expire tomorrow morning, and see if there's anon vandalism. If they do come up more often than we can easily handle then I'll semi-protect the page again for a longer period. --Deryck C. 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Black travel alert

Somebody has placed the sentence "The Hong Kong Government then immediately issued a top-black travel alert for the Philippines" at the end of the lead paragraph. The black travel alert obviously lacks the significance required to appear in the lead. Therefore, I am reverting it.Craddocktm (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not specifically the travel alert, but perhaps something should be added to the lead about the respective governments' responses in the aftermath. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Significance:

1. it's kind of a revenge: [3]
2. it's significant in that this is the first time the HK gov't issued the top-level travel alert (essentially a ban on travel to the Philippines) without prior warning. This is a pretty obvious fact if you look at the list of previous travel alerts (which is publicly available), but so far no one else claimed the "first" bit, so it could be OR if we say so. --Deryck C. 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm siding with Craddock here for now. Seems like it's a press opinion and not 'officially' a tit-for-tat measure, of which China is master; this and the second point are both WP:OR at this point in time. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A government wouldn't ever say out loud that they're "revenging" with a travel ban, would they? First point definitely isn't original research, although we should make clear that the "revenge" bit was a press comment, not a government announcement. --Deryck C. 02:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It's still possible to argue that the move was out of concerns for the security of its citizens. Don't know so much about Hong Kong, but China's diplomacy is littered with examples of pitiful and pathetic displays of retaliations to indicate its displeasure which demonstrate its rulers' psyche has not got past the cloistered mind-set ('小家') and what is needed to become a fully-fledged super-power, IMHO. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Slightly FORUM here. Indeed it looks like too emotional to issue such travel alert at time like this. But the fact that most Hongkongers are provoked by this incident and might cancel their travel plan to Philippines. The official alert helps the travel agency customers to receive refund for the cancelation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a point to be made which is not OR though: Hong Kong government would keep the black travel warning in force indefinitely until the Philippine government can demonstrate sufficiently that their country is safe for Hongkongers to travel to. --Deryck C. 03:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am ready to let the black travel alert stay there as long as proportionate coverage is given to other government response. The significance of the alert on its own is not much, unless we take into account the potential OR mentioned above.Craddocktm (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Analysis

I think it would be interesting if those with good access and fluency for local news media could find sources that pick apart the factors, one by one, which led to the deficiency in the police response - and in particular, why it was so.

For example, a source I just found [4] and some of the experts quoted in the final section describe a failure to secure/isolate the crime scene or to do crowd control. In the U.S. the first response seen to something like the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is for police to put up small metal fences or yellow tape to try to force crowds out (there was a video from the attack that someone must have taken out of the article, but you could see that most of the photos shown in that article were from the edge of these fences. And the response was later faulted for not pushing people back far enough!). Now the question is, why wasn't this scene secured well enough to keep a child or a news cameraman out of the range of the bullets? Was it a lack of personnel, a lack of a way to communicate with them or to get them there through traffic, or just a cultural difference regarding the acceptability of disrupting the whole flow of a city to avoid a lone nut who might be talked down? Wnt (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is very close to WP:SYNTHESIS. Not that I have anything against trying to figure out what exactly happened or why it happened, but our own analysis don't really belong on WP. Analysis of notable people of expertise belong here. Remember, we are only supposed to report what credible sources are saying. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowd control in the Philippines? LOL! You guys have no idea what you are talking about. The more I think about it, the more sympathy I have for the police. Lambanog (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

and 'Special Weapons and Tactics' is an oxymoron in the Philippines. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, with the amount of flak the SWAT has received and mistakes identified in hindsight, it is a wonder that all the hostages aren't dead. A truly competent hostage-taker could have brought explosives and blown up the entire bus. Maybe it should be considered fortunate that despite being a former policeman the hostage-taker wasn't that well-trained. The joys of backseat quarterbacking. Lambanog (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Mendoza was a good cop who was a victim of politics which, unfortunately in a country as poor and corrupt as the Philippines, is par for the course. It would not strain credibility to believe that he was set up in that drugs-extortion case by a Marcos loyalist in revenge for having stopped the money-laundering. The Ombudsman was apparently an Arroyo crony. I still believe he really didn't want to hurt anybody, but the chain of events his hijacking set off, compounded by incompetent negotiators, policing and tactical errors - very grave contributory negligence and gross incompetence - resulted in him losing control. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite up-to-date on the nuances of current Philippine politics. Marcos is so last century. The circuses surrounding Estrada and Arroyo are so much more colorful. I tend to believe Mendoza was a bad cop who got addicted to his power and authority and could not cope with being dismissed and emasculated so he hijacked the bus to get one last taste of having power over individuals. Notice things only really started going downhill when they didn't stroke his ego. Lambanog (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, I do not profess to be any sort of expert on Philippine politics. My comments were based on my limited knowledge, and my observations surrounding this case. I'd say we would be misjudging Marcos' influence if he can still have people shifting large sums of money out of the country 20+ years after he left power; OTOH, as it is well documented that Filipino coppers are all on the take, or they and their families would starve to death, so the question must be 'did the guy have a heart'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have created a new sub-page here, with two news articles about the errors and problems carried in the SCMP for your reference only. Please read it soon. I will have it deleted within 24h. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I misread it, Mendoza flagged down the van on the dying days of the Marcos presidency. That's may be the reason why he was named one of the 10 outstanding cops. There's reportedly a viral email circulating among De La Salle University students that Kalaw used money and influence to have the case go in his favor. I don't think that has been picked up by the media. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there also a viral email going around saying the ombudsman has CCTV evidence of the accused cops apparently trying to withdraw money from an ATM machine of Kalaw's bank at the time of the supposed shake down? Lambanog (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflicts ~13:00 UTC+8

After 2 edit conflicts (edit conflict, then edit conflict again as I press save after attempting to merge the edits) I got frustrated and decided to overwrite the latest revision with my version. Whoever whose edit got overwritten by mine may now go back and do their change... thanks. --Deryck C. 05:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• sorry about that. Nothing major - just moved a sentence. Now fixed. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Well done fixing the edit conflict. I'll go away for a while (enjoy some Hong Kong sunshine) and come back later, hopefully by then you would've finished the Hong Kong media and public section and we won't run into edit conflicts. Smile! --Deryck C. 05:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

Are in German, and Chinese. surely we can do better? Rich Farmbrough, 04:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

Employ an archive bot

Side track: this talk page is getting long and clumsy at places. Should we employ an archive bot (eg. MiszaBot) to auto-archive threads that are older than, say, 4 days? --Deryck C. 15:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• This page will be busy for maybe another week, not much more. So I don't think we need a bot, which is better at permanently busy articles. In the meantime, I will go and manually archive perhaps half of the older threads. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Archive bot, user:MiszaBot, is nice that it determines which section is no longer active, so you don't have to worry if the bot archives the section still being discussed. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ohconfucius! --Deryck C. 02:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"{{section}}" template

I put it as the investigatation rolls. Do not remove it. Comments below. Thank you! 121.1.55.87 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a good idea. The investigation will reveal details of the entire hostage incident, not just the assault bit. In addition, the treatment of hostages is still ongoing (Aftermath): Jason Leung's recovery progress is on TV news in Hong Kong every day. Also, media and public reactions are still ongoing. Therefore, I suggest putting the current event template back to the top of the page. --Deryck C. 02:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know why it was moved/removed, but the entire article will remain hot as news continues to pour in. I have reinstated the top-level tag. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems that frantic editing of this article has abated. I'm removing the tag. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:20, 31 August 2010 (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.