Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Marawi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2017 Marawi clash)


Conflict started by Abu Sayyaf/Maute or government security forces?

[edit]

There is a lot of confusion here. The Filipino media claims that government security forces instigated the clashes by raiding an Abu Sayyaf-Maute meeting, but international news sources (and other article referring to this article) are also claiming that Abu Sayyaf and the Mautes raided Marawi City first. Since Duterte is deliberately blocking live reporting on the ground to maintain a pro-government narrative, wouldn't there be some biases at play here? - 175.143.220.145 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your sources saying it was the Maute that raided or attacked the city. We accomodate all narratives here provided they are backed up by reliable sources. Also, im hearing this clash or clashes between the govt and terror groups have started to become a siege or occupation by Maute over parts of the city, and in fact several anon editors have editted Marawi and Lanao del Sur articles in the last 24 hours with entries that say they are now controlled by ISIS.--RioHondo (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, these developments in Marawi remind me of the 2013 Zamboanga siege.--RioHondo (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its established that the Armed Forces claimed that they launched an operation against Maute and Abu Sayaff elements in the city. Then a clash occurred. Following the government narrative, naturally the militants fought back and allegedly committed various atrocities in the city from kidnappings, arson, etc. The government are reluctant to accept eyewitness accounts of atrocities as facts and according to their side they are suppressing Mauete propoganda of making this incident bigger than it is and rejects that they are downplaying the incident. There is the government POV that this incident started from an offensive while there is another that this is a terrorist attack but it's clear that there is a clash between the two sides in the city.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All lawmakers are now voting the extension of the Declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao as the battle in Marawi city is still ongoing. This is happening now for like 2 hours. (Animelover0 (User talk:Animelover0|talk]]) 5:17, 22 July 2017

Rename this article.

[edit]

I think we might have to rename this article soon as reliable sources are starting to call these extended hostilities in Marawi as the Marawi siege, Marawi crisis or Marawi clashes. Definitely, this started as a clash between govt forces and terror groups but with the kidnapping and occupation of parts of the city, this has developed into a bigger conflict. There's the martial law declaration too.--RioHondo (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not a battle in any sense of the word. --Bernardoni (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a battle? Hundreds of phillipine military troops are engaged in combat against hundreds of militants. That fits the definition of a pitched battle and numerous sources refer to it as such: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], ect.XavierGreen (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Title is a non-issue to me. My only concern is if that title is the most common and recognizable name used in the media and reliable sources. It sure is a battle thats turned into a crisis.--RioHondo (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see how a title could be a non-issue. A correct title is indespensable for a really informative article cause the title influences the reader's whole attitude. According to our own Wikipedia, a battle is a "combat in warfare between two or more armed forces". This, however, is a series of attacks by "armed militants" on "security forces". The article says correctly it is an "armed conflict" going on for several days. Therefore, I would suggest to tune down the grandiose sounding expression "battle" (consider "Battle of Waterloo"). How about "Marawi Crisis" or "Marawi Clashes" as you wrote above? --Bernardoni (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Militants do constitute an "armed force", they wouldn't be militants if they hadn't taken up arms. There are a host of articles about combat actions involving militant groups that are titled "Battle of (insert name here)", for example the Battle of Kunduz in 2015, the ongoing Battle of Mosul, and the Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016).XavierGreen (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You can actually check who did what in the article's history. As far as the reliable sources i have seen, Marawi crisis is its commonname, but the contributor above insisted that Battle be used citing three sources. As I said, im only really concerned for what media and RS predominantly uses, but im open to discuss the most appropriate title.--RioHondo (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch what I said. Scanning the media, Marawi Crisis seems to be the most common usage (or crisis in Marawi). Anyone object to me calling it "Marawi Crisis"? Or even 2017 Marawi Crisis if people are fond of including the dateEl cid, el campeador (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the article back to Marawi crisis. It is WP:COMMONNAME. Marawi siege seems the most common after that. I don't know why insists of "battle" If most RS assess it as a crisis then we must follow it. IMO I agree with Bernardoni on this. Battle seems like a skirmish in a full scale war.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A google news search of "Marawai Crisis" and "Marawai battle" show almost the same amount of hits, and many sources use both the words crisis and battle in them. It seems like there is a consensus to use crisis for the title, so i won't revert it.XavierGreen (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its definitely crisis to me, since the word battle is mostly for war. This is not a war anyway. Darwgon0801 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Moro conflict, which this is a part, can certaintly be considered to be a war. Its listed on the List of wars involving the Philippines page.XavierGreen (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XavierGreen, yes but we're talking about only in Marawi. The two incidents in Butig, Lanao del Sur (in Feb and Nov 2016) was not named battle either although its part of the Moro conflict. Darwgon0801 (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before the sources are split on the title so i don't really care, but this is a battle in the Moro Conflict. A sustained engagement over a period of several days is not a mere skirmish or clash of arms.XavierGreen (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are lot of crisis already happened in Marawi as well as battles. One of those are the attempt to kidnap the Japanese ambassador. This will confuse other articles on what specific turmoil that will happen, that happened on both natural and man-made crisis. I would suggest to rename to 2017 Marawi Crisis.

Bonvallite (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civilians causalities?

[edit]

One source was in a different language (I assume Filipino), and the other didn't appear to state that there were 11 civilian casualties. I just think we should specify how many civilians were injured vs killed. If we don't know yet that obviously makes sense but the info box should be changed regardless. El cid, el campeador (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. As the even is in progress and official tally is not final. (I hope that no more will be added though). As for the info box. The most updated official tally in both english and tagalog will be updated and watch daily. Majority print media here in philippines are written in English language.

Bonvallite (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check References

[edit]

Please make sure that the information being cited is actually in the news source cited! (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add a map of the Philippines to the infobox that highlights where Mindanao is located

[edit]

The current single map does not do a good job of conveying the location of Marawi to the vast majority of people reading this article.

Current map showing that ISIS has control of the entire city makes absolutely no sense. The Armed Forces have taken the majority of areas that were briefly occupied by the militants. And militants are starting to suffer heavy casualties. Revert it back to the old map or perhaps make a more detailed one rather than just post blatant propaganda/incorrect information. Agila81 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple news sources indicate that the majority of the city has been recaptured by the government. Current map is not accurate. Please change to previous one Agila81 (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?

[edit]

Wikipedia's article tells us that the government sustained minor casulites, while inflicting heavy ones on the ISIS. It also says that majority of territory has been retaken. But this is very conflicting with other sources that say exactly the opposite [4], [5], [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it seems very biased. Beshogur (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to add claims from other sources but as the government ordered a media blackout in Marawi for security reasons they say, most of the sources only rely on what the Philippine military provide them.--RioHondo (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its a case of systemic bias given the media blackout but conflicting claims must be noted.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media Bias?

[edit]

Does the government ordered media blackout from the City? I saw mediamen reporting LIVE from the city, 200 meters from the seige to be specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.252.149 (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say is the government is trying to limit information that may compromise the troops on ground and preventing panic caused by unverified Maute atrocities circulating in social media. Of course, a reliable source would be needed to actually state in the article that there is technically a "media blackout". No such order as far as I know. Only calls by the military to citizens to restrain themselves on circulating unverified information in social media.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There probably is no media blackout afterall. I thought there was. It's probably media exagerrating the whole martial law declaration, they always do. But its probably systemic bias considering media is reporting from government troops positions.--RioHondo (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS or ISIL?

[edit]

There has been no consensus about what name for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria should be used here. Philippine media will usually use Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), while foreign media will use ISIL. Should MOS:TIES apply on the naming of ISIL here? TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did many war edits, you should try to look at Turkish military intervention in Syria Beshogur (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if Turkish media will use "Daesh", but it seems to correspond to ISIL, that international media commonly uses. If MOS:TIES will apply here, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) must be used over ISIL, because that is what the Philippine media uses, whether it is English, Filipino, or vernacular languages by province. I'll have Hariboneagle927 pinged for his view on naming the Islamic State as ISIS in this article, which is tied to the Philippines, whose media will tend to call the Islamic State "ISIS", over foreign media that calls that militant group "ISIL".TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
International media actually overwhelmingly uses "ISIS", and always has. Only US White House sources have more commonly used "ISIL". I never understood why the article is named as it is. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't mind using the common name in Wikipedia (its current article title-ISIL) provided the article makes it clear that its popular name in the Philippines is ISIS or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria on first mention, with ISIL being used in succeeding paragraphs except in direct quotes. It's like when linking to Typhoon Haiyan, you have to mention Yolanda, and then switch back to Haiyan for the succeeding mentions.--RioHondo (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYVIO

[edit]

@RioHondo:Your text: "AFP Chief of Staff Eduardo Año confirmed that three Malaysians, an Indonesian and possibly Arab extremists had been killed since Islamists tried to take over Marawi last week. He also said the military had made advances in containing the week-long siege of the majority-Muslim city. According to Año, the extremists plotted to set Marawi ablaze and kill as many Christians as possible in nearby Iligan on Ramadan to mimic the violence seen by the world in Syria and Iraq."

Source: "Armed Forces chief Gen. Eduardo Año reportedly said on Tuesday that three Malaysians, an Indonesian and possibly Arab extremists had been killed in Marawi since Islamists tried to take over the predominantly Muslim city last week. The Associated Press quoted Año as saying that the military had made advances in containing the weeklong siege of Marawi. He said a top Filipino militant was believed to have been killed and the leader of the attack was wounded in the fighting. According to Año, the extremists plotted to set Marawi ablaze and kill as many Christians in nearby Iligan city on Ramadan to mimic the violence seen by the world in Syria and Iraq."

Stop edit warring and read the policy. Also WP:CIR. zzz (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing of the source you think? Then why delete the rest of the sourced entries? We'll leave that source out and restore the rest of the sourced paragraphs removed in the process.--RioHondo (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Violations? The last paragraph in the intro about AFP confirming that foreign terrorists have joined the militants and their plan to declare a wilayat is supported by a lot of sources in the article. You also removed the Related attacks section i added which is also sourced and is a standard component of conflict articles. See Zamboanga City crisis#Related attacks.--RioHondo (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date format: MDY or DMY?

[edit]

The previous versions used dates in month-day-year (MDY) format, but most are changed to day-month-year (DMY) format, creating inconsistent use of date format in the article. With strong ties to the Philippines, which uses the MDY date format, with occasional use of DMY format. The MDY format should be used throughout the article. The {{Use mdy dates}} looks like it is ignored. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely for the MDY format here. The only excusable usage for the DMY format for anything Filipino is Miriam's article or equipment built for the AFP.
The problem here is that Wikipedia articles don't have pop-up disclaimers like on Wikia. Just putting the "use MDY dates" template and putting it in a hidden category won't work because our current disclaimer is just visible in source mode and only veteran users of Wiki codes cares about it. Raku Hachijo (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct term - operation instead of offensive

[edit]

Original: "The Philippine government claims that the clashes began when it launched an offensive in the city to capture Isnilon Hapilon"

I think the correct term is operation.

Proposed: "The Philippine government claims that the clashes began when it launched an operation in the city to capture Isnilon Hapilon"

Pierreqa (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion?

[edit]

In light of the UNTV interview of Sen. Risa Hontiveros with Daniel Razon, is it right to label this as an invasion since this will give the government the appropriate reason to declare Martial Law in Mindanao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.130.234 (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first Marawi Crisis, so it should be renamed.

[edit]

Wasn't there another Marawi Crisis in the 1970s? I think this should be renamed 2017 Marawi Crisis so that the difference is clear. I'm not sure if there's an article for that earlier crisis, though. - AtoyVCruz (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A google search shows that most of the sources now simply refer to it as a battle, as such it should be renamed back to Battle of Marawi.XavierGreen (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 14 June 2017

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed to Battle of Marawi. Note that it doesn't matter that the nominator appears to have had second thoughts about the nomination. There is a clear consensus of support for Battle of Marawi over the current title and over any other proposed title, supported by evidence of real-world usage. bd2412 T 01:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marawi crisis → ???? – The article's current name is fine but some editors may wish to change it. Although news media in the Philippines still use "Marawi crisis" maybe others disagree and move toBattle of Marawi? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Marawi crisis is fine. The media either consistently refers to the conflict as the "Marawi crisis" or "Marawi siege". It is rarely labeled as the "Battle of Marawi" although it has been described as a battle. Yes it's been described as a battle but RS rarely (relatively) labels the conflict itself as the "Marawi battle". If the word appears in sources. It's usually in the lines of "the battle in Marawi".Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move to Battle of Marawi What the media in the Philippines uses is irrelevant, what is relevant is what is most commonly used across all english language sources. A majority of english language sources call this a battle, so per WIKI:Common Name, this page should titled accordingly. A google search clearly shows 754,000 hits for Battle [[7]], while only 571,000 for crisis [[8]]. Interestingly enough, of the google hits for crisis, 422,000 of them also use the word battle [[9]]. So any arguement that battle is not common is uninformed and moot. High profile international media sources like The New York Times [[10]], AlJazeera [[11]], The Guardian [[12]], . Even Philippines based english sources use Battle, like ABS-CBN [[13]] and the Manila Times [[14]]. Again, per [15], this article should be titled Battle of Marawi.XavierGreen (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not a battle? Two large organized armed forces have engaged each other in combat over control of the city. It fits the very definition of what a battle is. As i indicated above, the vast majority of sources refer to it as a battle.XavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Battle of Marawi. User:XavierGreen's sources show that the term battle is used to describe this event but few of those sources use the phrasing "Battle of Marawi". Battle of Marawi reads too much like a proper name and it is one that is not yet in widespread usage, so moving it to this title is borderline WP:OR. In Google searches, "Battle in Marawi" seems more common than "of" and "Battle for" is also used. (When searching Google, put quotes around the phrasing. Note that many of the results for refer to the Battle of Marawi (1895).) However, I could support a move to another descriptive title if others agree but what's wrong with the current title if "news media in the Philippines still use 'Marawi crisis'"? (User:Kguirnela Google Trends results above show this as a more common search term as well). —  AjaxSmack  16:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the main issue I have with the proposed moved. None to little of the sources actually uses the proper noun "Battle of Marawi" or any variants to describe the conflict. Either its "security forces battles ISIS-linked militants", "battle-torn Marawi", etc. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
​Then you should consider overtly stating "oppose" to the nomination. That would not preclude discussion of other titles as well. —  AjaxSmack  00:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : Yes, I oppose the proposed move.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, it could be said that this is more than just a battle, its a crisis. The humanitarian crisis generated by the conflict as well as the political tensions which arose from the declaration of martial law has significant contribution to the notability of the conflict.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point but the term "crisis" is less impactful than the term "battle" and I would tend to use the strongest term to describe a situation. Of course when you have a battle happening it generates a crisis for the attacked forces/people but it's more a consequence. Wykx (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Suez Crisis, an extended war involving four countries. —  AjaxSmack  00:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except this isnt a war, its a battle in the Moro conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still the example follows what is WP:COMMONNAME, instead for going with "Sinai War". "Marawi crisis" is WP:COMMONNAME, just because it isn't "impactful" as "battle" doesn't mean we should be going against what RS calls the conflict. The Zamboanga City crisis also involved rebel forces occupying parts of the city, however this doesn't involve ISIS linked militants.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As previously mentioned the only evidence is that both names are used is the media, with a bit more for "crisis". This cannot be the differentation between the two terms. Then we should rely to facts, which is in favour of 'Battle' as previously explained. Wykx (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Support for the article's name replacement to Battle of Marawi. I came up with some of the details that are significantly needed to support the renaming and/or moving of this article to a well-defined name, which should be the Battle of Marawi.
The first supportive article that I will provide is the Crisis. What is Crisis?.
According to the contents of the Crisis article here in Wikipedia, "A crisis is any event that is going (or is expected) to lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, community, or whole society. Crises are deemed to be negative changes in the security, economic, political, societal, or environmental affairs, especially when they occur abruptly, with little or no warning. More loosely, it is a term meaning "a testing time" or an "emergency event".".
As per the article, the emboldened details is sufficiently enough to disprove that the on-going conflict is a crisis, perhaps it is a battle because it does involved the country's army versus the large (probably more than 500) armed terrorist..
So what is a battle? According again to the Wikipedia article, "A battle is a combat in warfare between two or more armed forces, or combatants. A war sometimes consists of many battles. Battles generally are well defined in duration, area, and force commitment.".
So by that, the term Battle will be a perfect fit to this article because the both parties in conflict are armed, has a battlefield, has a duration, and a commitment (The commitment of the so-called ISIS fighters in the Philippines is to destabilize the Government of Marawi and to raise their flag on the city's city hall)..
With all of that explained clearly, I, therefore, conclude that the name of this article shall be change to "Battle of Marawi" instead of "Marawi crisis".
CONTRIBUTIONS• MARK JHOMEL •MESSAGE ME
It doesn't really disprove that the conflict is a "crisis". The conflict is indeed caused a negative change to security (and socioeconomic effects as well if we count the humanitarian crisis). It's never disputed that the conflict is a battle but rather "Battle of Marawi" isn't the WP:COMMONNAME for this conflict.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my answer abbove on WP:COMMONNAME. Wykx (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree to the answer of Wykx regarding the WP:COMMONNAME. I believe that WP:COMMONNAME is not necessary to implement since the 'Battle' is currently ongoing and will involve a much more higher death tolls and increase in the duration. It doesn't mean that it is called currently by that name, it will be permanent. WP:COMMONNAME shall be implemented if and only if the conflict is already finished and wasn't appropriately named. This Battle of Marawi will be the part of ongoing Moro Conflict in Mindanao. CONTRIBUTIONS• MARK JHOMEL •MESSAGE ME 10:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marawi conflict - Unlike "Marawi crisis", which is common in local media [16], "Marawi conflict" appears in both local and international media [17]. Alerting those who have voted/commented already: @Shhhhwwww!!, Hariboneagle927, XavierGreen, AjaxSmack, Wykx, In ictu oculi, Coltsfan, and Beshogur: It is a better title than "crisis" - more "natural, precise" [18] - and avoids the OR complaint raised with "Battle of Marawi". zzz (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Marawi conflict" as more "organic" alternative to "Battle of Marawi". If most history books, and other academic works published after this subsides refer to this conflict as the "Battle of Marawi" then I would no oppose moving this to "Battle of Marawi".
The battle ongoing at Marawi is part of the Moro conflict, to call this the "Marawi conflict" would be extremely confusing to readers, leading them to believe that this is an insurgency or war, when in actually it is merely a battle in an already ongoing larger military conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for Battle of Marawi - All said, this IS an actual battle, and the conflict fits the definition of an ongoing battle by all definitions. The battle seems similar to some version of the Battle of al-Hasakah (2015), or even the Kobanî massacre. Crisis is too general of a term, and although it is widely used, it will confuse newer readers. I know that I was confused by the article title until I actually read through the content. Wikipedia articles need to be as clear and concise as possible. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this conflict is officially a battle. Read this article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't decide on our own self. I'm sure that since you said that you never heard of this battle, this is your own opinion, however, we do not consider personal opinions here in Wikipedia and we are only accepting factual things to be included here. Read the explanation above about battle, they are stated above. Here is the one of many evidence that this battle is a battle. [19] - Mark Jhomel (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More sources are referring to the event as a battle now. I think that we should simply refer to this event as exactly what it happens to be, regardless of whether or not "Battle of Marawi" has e become a formalized name or not. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more sources from major international media outlets today refering to it as a battle, Reuters [[20]] and CNN [[21]].XavierGreen (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't know yet whether our sources may be using info from the article, possibly causing circular reporting. My stance is still against renaming to "Battle of Marawi". It was called original research on one argument here, and this still be called as "Marawi crisis" (translated from Filipino "krisis sa Marawi"). -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Shhhhwwww!!:, what is this diff supposed to mean? Your edit summary says "oppose as nominator", but you didn't give any clear reasoning for your opposition. In any case, you should state your opposition in a separate comment. Otherwise, it messes up the formatting in the listing on WP:RM. V2Blast (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Should Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia be added as belligerents?

[edit]

Malaysian and Indonesian Navys are now blocking the route to and from Mindanao. Australia has added 2 Recon planes. If US Technical Assistance is added, why not these? Also, these are in International Reaction section but not in the Timeline section... I feel they should be added in the Timeline as well. Henryjones000 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They should only be added if their actions play a direct military role in the battle, not just limited to aid delivery or a blockade due to political reasons. A military blockade might warrant their inclusion, but I can't see the value in blockading the area, given the fact that the ISIL-affiliated militants can't really move their supplies freely across the islands. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, these countries had no role at all in the Marawi crisis even if their increase support against extremists was a response to the Marawi conflict. These support could be noted in the international reaction when it was explicit it was a response to the tensions in Marawi in particular. These efforts are part of the wider Moro conflict though. At the moment only the USA has some direct role in the Marawi crisis.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the war on drugs?

[edit]

Is it right to say in the infobox that the Marawi crisis is part of the ongoing Philippine war on drugs? While there have been shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) found on a Maute group safehouse and alleged funding by narcopoliticians, it cannot be part of the War on Drugs, unless a reliable source says so. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I am confused if it is really a part of Philippine Drug War or not. Anyway since a considerable amount of Shabu has been found on the houses encamped by the terrorist, then it should be part of the PWOD. I think that maybe we can wait first for the sources for confirmation. - Mark Jhomel (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2017 UTC
And plus, there are no mentions of confiscation of kilograms of shabu and Maute group members using drugs in the article. Someone may help add them, though I can add them myself after finding reliable news articles at Google News.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added info about the confiscated shabu, and drug use by the Maute group, but about the Marawi crisis in the War on Drugs, I seriously doubt it, that I consider it's removal from the infobox.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly fire incident

[edit]

It seems like there is a duplication of the friendly fire incident in the timeline, on May 31 and June 1. I belive that the said incident only happened once. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --JethRoad the FactBoy 03:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Including news agencies

[edit]

Please do not include news agencies in articles, e.g. "A Reuters report identified...". In accordance to Wikipedia:Citing sources. It opposes neutrality and "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references...". --JethRoad the FactBoy 03:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may disagree because that is allowable as in-text attribution, but on the other hand, that may cause the neutrality issues you point out. Yes, mentioning news agencies on the text may cause neutrality issues, as their statements are primarily shared with other agencies. Thanks for addressing that.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of military intervention against ISIL?

[edit]

While being part of the Philippine Drug War is all questionable, the Marawi crisis being part of the military intervention against ISIL is also doubtful. While the Abu Sayyaf and Maute group have pledged allegiance to ISIL and became part of it, that is not enough to be part of campaigns against ISIL. That can be called original research until proven so. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since the ISIS Philippines was recognized by the ISIS in the middle east, this can be a part of Military intervention against ISIS. ~ Mark Jhomel (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Issue

[edit]

@Mark Jhomel If you would check again [22] I already canceled my edit less then a minute later. PS Those were (for the most part) listings of ship losses. But again, I already canceled my edit almost immediately. EkoGraf (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS/ISIL or Maute Group?

[edit]

Wasn't the war started by the Maute Group? Local media refers to Maute group as the perpetrators. Itsquietuptown (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are the primary perpetrators thus the local media refers to the militants under the name Maute group (sometimes Maute-ISIS) even though some are members of the Abu Sayyaf group including leader Isnilon Hapilon. International media simply refers to the perps as ISIS/ISIL since the international audience are more familiar with the larger group. Imho, the perps should be refered to as " ISIL-linked militants" since the Maute are not only the perpetrators and all of the militants claim to be part of ISIL.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that idea. Itsquietuptown (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2017

[edit]

Please edit the date of the battle from 'present' to this day (2017-10-17) Kachiizen (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MILF air support?

[edit]

The article claims that MILF provided air support but I have yet to find any sources for this claim. I don't consider it a very important detail but it caught my eye. Sunomi64 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes

[edit]

User:Hariboneagle927, you shifted War Crimes/Human rights concerns sections into Aftermath from its original separate section. The abuses happened during the battle, only the report of Amnesty concerning these only as well as the action that will be taken against erring soldiers are after the battle. I wonder why you have shifted it, when the main issue is about alleged abuses which happened during the battle. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was judgement call on my part feel free to revert. I felt that since the report was released after battle that it is appropriate to move it to Aftermath.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of US help ?

[edit]

Some news reports say Us special forces got involved without the knowing of the countries leader. Seems like an extraordinary thing to happen if true. Is this credible enough to mention. 38.99.190.243 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies Throughout Article Regarding Friendly Fire Casualities

[edit]

While reading through the article, I noticed that the number of government forces killed in friendly fire denoted in the "Casualities" section is not consistent with the number obtained by adding up friendly fire casualities mentioned in the "Timeline".

  • Friendly fire casualities according to the "Casualities" section: 12;
  • Friendly fire casualities when adding them up in the "Timeline" section: 11 (31 May incidence) + 10 (June 1 incidence) + 2 (July 12 incidence).

The incidences from may 31 and june 1 might be the same event, as user Jeth888 already mentioned.

Suggestion: Add a different reference reporting the total number of friendly fire casualities (assuming there is more than one incidence; I myself lack knowledge of the subject. The current reference does not list 12 casualities, as far as I noticed) or be consistent with the "Timeline" section.

Proviii (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proviii (talk • contribs) 19:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Siege of Marawi. There is the consensus to move to a variant of "siege", and this one is consistent with Category:Sieges by city. No such user (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Marawi → Marawi siege – The battle has never been referred to the proper noun "Battle of Marawi" prior to the move of this article. I suspect support for the move was largely due to a common naming schemes for contemporary skirmishes here in Wikipedia (and nowhere else) such as the Battle of Raqqa (2017), The skirmish has been continued to be referred to as "Marawi siege" by WP:RS when searching through google using "Marawi rehabilitation", "Marawi Maute", "Marawi ISIS" – since using both "Battle of Marawi" and "Marawi siege" as search terms would skew results. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Siege of Marawi is fine by me. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Tambayan Philippines has been notified of this discussion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Terrorism has been notified of this discussion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Death has been notified of this discussion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Confusing sentence needs clarification

[edit]

Under the heading "Timeline: May 31", the penultimate sentence in the final paragraph reads "It was the first time that members of the militant groups the start of the fighting. (emphasis added)" The sentence is lacking the verb that should go between "groups" and "the". I presume the word would be "surrendered" followed by "since", but I can't be sure. Can anyone clarify? Bricology (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Cleanup

[edit]

I'm planning to do a cleanup of the infobox for this article. The current one does not seem to comply with WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. In particular, Template:Infobox military conflict has guidance for some of the parameters. A summary follows:

  • The result parameter should be very brief. The "Philippine government victory" is good, but the bullet points below are better left for the body of the article. I propose we remove all but "Philippine government victory" from the result parameter.
  • The "supported by" heading is depreciated. I propose we remove the heading and all that falls under it. If anyone feels it's important, we can add it as prose into the article body.
  • The "Commanders and leaders" section is a mess. Per the infobox template, it should reflect only the commanders of the military forces involved and with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. While the Philippine president may be commander in chief, I don't think it's useful to have him listed. I propose that we retain only Lt. Gen. Rolando Bautista, who was in overall command, and perhaps Lt. Gen. Danilo G. Pamonag. All the others should be removed, as the article body doesn't seem to support them being a commander involved in the conflict.
  • The "Units involved" section likewise needs trimming. I see no mention in the article body of any coast guard or the US Navy SEALS. They should thus be removed from the infobox. I'd like to trim the units further, but am not familiar enough with the conflict to gauge what would be appropriate.

Because this could potentially remove referenced content, I wanted to bring it up on the article talk page first. Thoughts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that an IP has twice reverted, but provided now rationale nor discussed here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "siege" and "pagkubkob" in lede

[edit]

Per Cindarella's latest edit, I agree that "siege" should be lowercase. MOS:PROPER does require capitalization for proper names, but in the first page of a google search for "siege of marawi", I found only one time when siege was capitalized was as part of an article title, out of perhaps a half dozen. I don't think a case can be made that "Siege of Marawi" is a proper name.

I also noticed that the Filipino Pagkubkob sa Marawi is written thus, with a capital. I checked the two sources, and neither capitalizes Pagkubkob in their article body. Should we lowercase Pagkubkob as well? I don't speak Filipino, am unable to do a thorough search myself without risking error. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EducatedRedneck, most languages with capitalisation are much more rigorous in capitalising only proper names - ie not descriptive names like this. What I also see is that many translations of article titles in En Wiki articles capitalise the translations as if they were in English. It is something that has troubled me for a while. Ultimately, I would agree that, if they aren't capped in prose in the alternative language, we use lowercase. I suspect the other alternative names are also miscapitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Marawi&oldid=1257670783"