Talk:Moro conflict

Incorrect

quote: "The colonies that became the nations of Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, and Thailand lumped together ....." unquote.

sad enough, but is incorrect for thailand, which never was anybodies colony...... if you want to refer to the three southernmost muslim provinces, they were annexed by thailand, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattani_Separatism Scyriacus (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Insurgency" be "insurgency"? Uthanc 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

East Timor independence and other non-Philippine insurgent movements should have references to them deleted from this article dealing with Islamic Insurgency in the Philippines.

Is there such a concept in existence. As of now there are no sources in the article that suggests there exists "Islamic insurgency in the Philippines". The only source in the article[1] doesn't even mention the word "insurgency".Bless sins 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the words "Islamic terrorism" would be more accurate and appropriate. -- Karl Meier 11:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's understandable how many may feel that "Islamic terrorism" could possibly be more fitting. After all, when you search" Abu Sayyaf one can only find documented terrorist activities. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible updates

• "MILF rebs occupy Zambo school". ABS-CBN Interactive. 2008-01-10. Retrieved 2008-01-11.
• "14 killed in Maguindanao clashes". Agence France-Presse via ABS-CBN Interactive. 2008-01-15. Retrieved 2008-01-17.
• "Maguindanao clash kills 2 MILF rebs, hurts CVO". GMANews.tv. 2008-04-03. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
• "MILF doubts gov't 'commitment' to peace process". GMANews.tv. 2008-04-09. Retrieved 2008-04-13.

There are Rajah Solaiman Movements and Mujadeen in the Philippines

There are Mujadeen forces helping Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and the Rajah Solaiman Movement is a rebel group in the Philippines (see Rajah Solaiman Movement for details). PS yes Pirates are helping rebel groups in the Philippines how else could they get around the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Socialist Revolution Front of Albay

THe Socialist Revolution Front of Albay is a Communist supporting group in Albay who`s goal is to turn Albay into a Independent Socialistic Country with Legazpi as its Capital. The Socialist Revolution Front of Albay is a new rebel group which only started after 2006. It is assumed that Socialist Revolution Front of Albay has less than 100 soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.180.86 (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Australia

What about Australia. Australia is helping the Philippines fight the terrorists arent they. I mean Australia is the second largest anti terrorist supporter to the Philippine goverment in the Philippines. Heres a reference if you want to read it [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.111.221 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That just says that the Australian government thinks that the offensive was a good idea. There's no mention of any actual assistance. Australia provides the Phillipines with training and has donated some equipment as part of its assistance to militaries in the region, but there are no 'boots on the ground' helping out. As such, I've reverted you. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Canada?

Why is Canada in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.84.47 (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there's a persistant IP vandal who keeps adding rubbish about foreign involvement in this war to articles on the Philippines. I've just removed Canada, the UK, Russia and Japan as they're obviously not involved in this war. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How Ironic: you seem to be that vandal. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My recent edit

I started out to make a few small changes to this article, but my edit has grown so that I think I need to explain the various concerns which drove it.

1. The lead sentence began, "Insurgencies in the Philippines is a conflict ...", a clear disagreement in number (several insurgencies are, a single insurgency is). I reworded the sentence.
2. I reworded the History section to accommodate a wikilink to the Philippine revolts against Spain article.
3. I removed the ref to the name="retuers1" item from the lead section and the History section. That referenced item says, "The Mindanao conflict first flared in the 1960s", but the article text at those points more concerns the Moro rebellion of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
4. I substantially rewrote the Communist insurgency section using information from the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas-1930, Communist Party of the Philippines and New People's Army articles.
5. When I reached the Muslim insurgency section I was on a roll, so I reworded the first couple of sentences a bit. The biggest change content-wise was to change "Islamic groups" to "islamist groups".

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs major expansion, since as you have pointed out there are multiple insurgent groups, all against the present government of the Philippines, but all for different reasons, and as far as I am aware are united/allied with each other. Each group should have its own subsection, each with its own background/reason, and history section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This article needs protection from IP vandals. Maildiver (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has been semi-protected a few times in the past. Despite that, I am doubtful that it meets the criteria for semi-protection as described at Wikipedia:Protection#Semi-protection. There are a lot of recent anonymous edits to the article from a number of different IPs, with few identified in a reverting edit summary as vandalous (four [3][4][5][6] that I saw in the last 500 edits, which takes us back to 2006). The conflicts seem to be arising from conflicting perspectives held by different blocks of editors re what should and should not go in the combatant1= definition in the infobox and about other things.

Re the latterformer, Perhaps an inline comment might help— perhaps something like

<!--only enter combatants directly involved militarily in the combatant1 & combatant2 parameters-->
|combatant1={{flag|Philippines}}
|combatant2=[...]

Perhaps there is consensus for some criteria other than direct combat involvement; if so, once that consensus is clear that criteria could also be explained in an inline comment.

Re reversions growing out of conflicting perspectives about other things, I see that the edit summary of one of the reversions reads, "Reverted possible vandalism. This conflict has at least three sides to it if not more. Gov/Communists Gov+USA allies VS Islamists / The islamist have nothing to do with the communists". If the situation is that complex, the complexity should be explained in the article prose. The article has been around since April of 2006 and, though it is not tagged as a WP:stub, presently is just 4 KB (552 words) long. Perhaps the article needs a bit more content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit waring appears to be user:23prootie editing under IP socks. I also don't think that the level of vandalism and reversions is sufficient to justify protection at this stage. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1930s, 1960s, 1800s, 1500s, what? Some particular insurgency? Insurgency against whom?

This edit changed the beginning of the date range from 1960s to 1930s; however, see the Timeline of Philippine sovereignty and Philippine revolts against Spain articles. Insurgencies in the Philippines go back to the 1500s (I'm currently in the middle of making some changes related to the Dagami Revolt of 1567, but the changes impact more than just that one article and I may not get around to editing that one today) . Insurgencies against the U.S. go back to the late 1800s. I'm not sure about insurgencies against the current Government of the Republic of the Philippines (a redirect to Politics of the Philippines) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I search for information about this war, And i found out that this war started since the Crusades, the battle between Christians and Muslims, then it continues when Islam reach reach Philippines in 12th century, and the Spaniards (Christian country) in 15th century, which also a part of this insurgency. The main reason of this war is the will of Muslim to recognize as a separate country, To achieve this, various Muslims group was formed to fight for independence, i thought i share enough information and idea...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that we have a disconnect here regarding the focus of this article. I think that most readers encountering this article will think of the term "this war" in connection with this article in terms of conflict in the context of the Philippines more than in the context of conflicts between of Islam and Christianity.

Also, I have long thought that this article was badly titled in view of its content (see WP:AT#Deciding on an article title). The lead sentence of this article dates the insurgency which is its topic from 1969, supported by the final paragraph of this BBC News article. Yes, there has been an ongoing conflict since 1969 between the New People's Army (formed in 1969) and Philippine governments (a better supporting source for that might be Stephen E. Atkins (2004). Encyclopedia of modern worldwide extremists and extremist groups. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 226. ISBN 978-0-313-32485-7. -- or any of a large number of other sources). However, if the article is focused specifically on the NPA insurgency, the article title should reflect that focus.

The NPA, by the way, as I understand it, is a Maoist group which grew out of the Hukbalahap -- the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and is not primarily an Islamic or Islamist organization. Perhaps you're thinking of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which split off from the NPA in 1977. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Split: Divide the article? (2010)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

split to Insurgency of the Communist Party of the Philippines

{{split|Communist insurgency in the Philippines|date=February 2010}}

I suggest to divide this article into Islamic insurgency in the Philippines and Communist Insurgency in the Philippines. Sarcelles (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

why? Expand the article and if it becomes too long divide...--DAI (Δ) 13:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

These are different things. Sarcelles (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be split into pre ARMM establishment conflict (that ended) and the current Islamist insurgency. Alinor (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Belligerents

The ip 173.160.200.181 additions were mine (I wasn't signed in). I added the Philippines armed forces by department. I'd certainly count them as belligerents! I added the U.S. Army's 1st Special Forces Group since they have been advisors and trainers to the Philippine armed forces in the conflict (the pages used as reference also show links to the names of U.S. soldiers killed 'advising' during the insurgency). The Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit CAFGU isn't a Christian Militia per se but an auxilary force to the Philippine armed forces and has it's own article on Wikipedia which includes the executive order creating it and no mention of it being begun as a "Christian" militia force. The "Civilian Volunteer Organization" mentioned under belligerents I took off. The supporting reference was far too vague in describing the victim's membership in a 'civilian volunteer organization'. Indexphp.typelogin (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ampatuan Members

The section on Ampatuan Members should be deleted. It isn't an insurgency. It was murder of historic and horrific proportions.

Ostensibly, the impression in the Philippines is that the previous government which had historically been allied with the Ampatuans during elections have opted to charge the Ampatuans of rebellion, a criminal act which carried a lighter sentence than murder.

The Ampatuans have not expressed any support for a movement with the objectives of either the overthrow of the government or secession. As such, it is unlikely that a guilty verdict will be arrived at by the courts and thereby acquitting the Ampatuans the crime. Milo96 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My LATEST edit

Hello,please do not revert my latest edit because it is important for people to know the other details regarding the insurgency here in the philippines,particularly the efforts of former presidents Ferdinand Marcos,Corazon Aquino,Fidel Ramos,Estrada and Arroyo in fighting the decade long insurgency.Therefore,the sections Early years,Post-EDSA years,and Latest developments(2000 - present should NOT be deleted,please.Or else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.13.140 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal (2012)

A merger has been proposed back in August 16, 2008, but the Discuss link is missing. I created this discussion to propose that North Cotabato Conflict be merged into Islamic insurgency in the Philippines. I think that the small content in the North Cotabato Conflict article can easily be explained in the context of Islamic insurgency in the Philippines, and the Islamic insurgency in the Philippines article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of North Cotabato Conflict will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Discussion is normally 1 week. Please indicate your preference by copying/editing template below

• Support - <insert reason for supporting merger here> (your signature)
• Oppose - <insert reason for opposing merger here> (your signature) ΔΦΣ (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, Be WP:BOLD and make the change. It has been two weeks and there has been no support or objection. However, if one is to make the merger the content needs to be summarized and verified using reliable sources. In the context of the larger insurgency the other article would probably only warrant one or two sentences.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The North Cotabato Conflict is more of a battle. For probably a good majority of the pages about war, battles are typically left as separate articles (unless the battle is so significant that you can't tell the story of the war without it as seen in this section of another war article.GuyHimGuy (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment is there any more comments for this? -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment did the proposal change or something? Someone added requested move banner to this section, when it's clearly not one. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

biased article

Here's a fine example how biased this article is: someone have wrote "professor Nur Misuari to condemn the killings of more than 60 Filipino Muslims Instead of writing Jabidah massacre. This is shortly afterward repeated with the exact link name use, which further comfirms my belife that the editor who wrote this is clearly trying to exxagerate/dramatize the hole, when official counts ranges from 28 to 60. It's sad to read articles like this one, writen obviously by supporters from one side to support their agendas, ignorant and disregarding the number one most important rule while writing historical articles, specially on an encyclopedia(!) : neutrality. --109.58.186.199 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that anyone can edit articles and that it is everyone's responsibility to ensure a neutral point to view. I would urge anyone who see bias to edit the article to remove the bias and further to register and become a regular editor. With registration you can create a WP:watchlist and monitor your chosen articles for biased edits.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamic insurgency in the Philippines → Moro insurgency in the Philippines – The insurgency of the Moros in Mindanao isn't entirely Islamist; there are some who prefer rebel on a nationalist instead of a religious cause; see the case between the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). While it's arguable that what makes one a "Moro" is his religion, there are differences in approaches, as one is secular and the other is religious. (Also, I'm also amenable to "Moro insurgency" or even "Moro Insurgency". Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC) –HTD 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - the argument appeals to me, however "Islamic insurgency in the Philippines" 146 results in Google Books vs "Moro insurgency in the Philippines" 6 results in Google Books presents a WP:COMMONNAME concern. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "moro insurgency" Philippines churns out 428 results. –HTD 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

HTD, you see to have made a copying error there of my own search, but it's okay I redid it to try and see your point "moro insurgency" + Philippines = 333 results, "islamic insurgency" + philippines = 402 results in my search. Still sounding more religious than ethnic. But then we don't have to follow the numbers when there isn't much in it, if there is a better logic. Still neutral however. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I dunno why I keep on getting different results from you. I've removed anything Wikipedia related on these searches, since "Islamic insurgency in the Philippines" has become entrenched due to it becoming the Wikipedia title for a long time:

• "moro insurgency" +Philippines -wikipedia has 470 results
• "islamic insurgency" +Philippines -wikipedia has 536 results.

Pretty close. I dunno if option #2 ("islamic insurgency" +Philippines -wikipedia) deals exclusively with the insurgency by the Moros in the Philippines, as Islamic insurgencies are pretty widespread, and the search string includes any book that mentions, no matter how briefly, the "Philippines". ""Moro insurgency" (without Philippines) has 504 results, though, so unless there are Moro people elsewhere, we can assume that the results exclusively refer to the Moros of the Philippines. It's certainly doesn't sound "more religious than ethnic". More like it sounds "religious and ethnic."

I guess this can only be solved if we look at it this way: are there any Filipino Muslim rebel groups who are not Moro? There's is none that I know of. Now, are there Filipino Moro rebel groups that are not Islamic? Yes. –HTD 12:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The over-long (~60 words) second sentence of the lead points up an Islamic focus in this article, though the article doesn't seem to have such a focus except for some mentions of MILF and Abu Sayyaf. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Precisely because the MILF and Abu Sayyaf are the "insurgents" that are Islamist. The MNLF has been nationalist (in name). It is thought that in practice, the fighters switch around these and other groups (lol).

The problem here is it assumes that the nature of insurgency in Mindanao is mostly Islamist. It is not; there are some Muslim insurgents that are not Islamist; in fact the original (post-Jabidah Massacre) insurgents are secular.

There had been new groups that are also Islamist such as the BIFF (which should be here). Overall, the focus of the article should be the Moro insurgency, which may or may not be Islamic. So we'd not only confine ourselves to the MNLF, MILF and ASG, but on some other groups as well. –HTD 08:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as the proposed title is more WP:PRECISE. Is it more likely that there are non-Moro insurgents, or non-Islamic insurgents? It seems to me that, Islamic or not, this is primarily a Moro insurgency. bd2412 T 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move (2014)

Moro insurgency in the Philippines → Islamic insurgency in the Philippines – The title of the article is no longer accurate, according to sources: [7], [8] the ones still fighting include Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, and groups linked to Al-Qaeda who are opposed to the peace deal. The peace deal between the government and the Moro National Liberation Front remains in place. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Support - per Knowledgekid87. Ithinkicahn (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support;, as per before. bd2412 T 01:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE See #Merger proposal (2012) for an ongoing merger proposal that the renaming may impact. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are many examples South Thailand insurgency, Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present), Insurgency in the North Caucasus.. These places have the Islamic insurgency but no such naming. Typical example of Islamophobia. Maurice07 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• That is easy thing to solve by lopping off the wording "Islamic" from the title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - This is an ethnic war, not a religious one.--Theparties (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Where are your sources that back this up? This source here: [9] has the people involved calling for an Islamic state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The Moro National Liberation Front is a secular movement. Again Islamophobia.--Theparties (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I just love how you WP:AGF here, did you miss the part where I said that the Moro National Liberation Front were not the ones fighting anymore? The current title implies with a status of "Ongoing" in the infobox implies that the Moro Front is still fighting against the government. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The Moro National Liberation Front just fought the government in Zamboanga last year to proclaim the secular Bangsamoro Republik. I have no idea what you are talking about? --Theparties (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose because historically the conflict does not have roots in Islamism and we need to make sure this article is historical and avoids WP:recentism. Further I would lean towards Mindanao insurgency in the Philippines as being more in line with WP:Commonname and the latter avoids the use of "moro" which can be tricky.

Civil conflict in the Philippines Merger

Originally I had made the page Civil conflict in the Philippines redirect to this page but was reverted stating "No consensus" so here I am trying to seek one. I do not see any sources that go on to say that this is a civil conflict or that the parties involved are engaged in a civil war. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - The page is a useful fork to distinguish this and the concurrent Insurgency of the Communist Party of the Philippines, which is occurring and began at the same time.--Theparties (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are at least two active insurgencies, plus there are any number of other civil conflicts. This is by no means the only civil conflict or even deadly civil conflict. I agree with Theparties. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)