Talk:Battle of Palma

Article title
The current title (Battle of Palma) seems quite out-of-step with how the press is covering this. A quick Google News search gives me "deadly attack", "military assault", "terror attack", "militants seize...", "rebels besiege...", "jihadist attack", "brutal assault", "insurgent attack", but no "Battle" (certainly not how the current lead is using it, as a proper noun). — Goszei (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Who cares about that shitty MSM "press"? Who cares about that shitty "google search"? What _is_ ongoing is nothing more, nor less, than a battle of a town, here: Palma in Mozambique, and that's all what counts (on wikipedia). In months from now, probably, we'll be able to categorize properly, but not in this very moment during bullets flying. 88.69.29.143 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While it is true that most sources call it an "attack" that term seems completely misplaced for a military operation that involves at least a week of fighting. If the rebels are driven back, the title "raid" might be more fitting, but if they hold the area, "battle" or "offensive" seem to fit the events best. One should not forget that WP:COMMONNAME does not mean that we have to always take whatever name is most used, but rather the one most accepted in respectable sources. For example, the opinion of experts and researchers would probably be more important in regard to this article's name than the opinions of the mass media - case in point, the latter have mostly focused on the mass murder of foreign civilians, and much less on the military aspects of the operation (or the fate of Mozambican civilians). Applodion (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Western media's coverage disproportionately focused on the Western victims. Had all the victims been Africans, the Western media would have been less interested in it. Jim Michael (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just so. The fact that there are several estimates on the number of dead Westerners, yet almost none on Mozambican deaths (besides some by researchers on Twitter), is quite glaring. Applodion (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * improve the explanation. 41.93.27.7 (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How exactly should it be improved? Jim Michael (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Control Risks
This article portrays CR as having an active role in fighting against the Islamists, but the company's WP article doesn't mention anything about them doing military work or it having armed employees. Jim Michael (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CR seems to employ armed personnel and to assist in planning; as CR is employed by firms operating in Palma, it would have actually been odd if they were not at all involved as the employees of their buisness partners are slaughtered. The source for their involvement says this: "The offensive [...] and had the support of private military companies operating in Cabo Delgado, including the Dyck Advisory Group (DAG) and Control Risk, a security firm based in London. [...] Control Risk operates in Palma, providing security services to several Rovuma gas companies. Control Risk's entry comes as a response to the death of foreigners in Palma, and is indicative of an increasing predisposition to support government forces, one source said". At least per this source, there can be no doubt that Cr is active in the battle, at least in some capacity - perhaps they only provide logistics and planning? But even then, they would be involved. In addition, the wiki's CR article history reveals the removal of a lot of information, including that of a controvery section by AubreyWood (who tried to remove their involvement here). I do not know enough about to CR to judge whether the removals on CR's article were correct, but I do not think the current CR article reflects all their activities. Applodion (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The extent of CR's involvement should be clarified in this article, because it currently portrays their involvement as similar to that of private military company DAG. The refs currently used don't specify CR's role - merely saying that they're providing security (which covers a variety of possibilities of its extent), but do specify DAG's role. I don't see any mention of CR being a PMC or being armed. Jim Michael (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Just found a source detailing the involvement of another PMC anyway. Applodion (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the article. CR is now listed separately and with "support role" in the infobox, and the text says "supported by DAG and the London-based Control Risks security firm". What do you think? Applodion (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the edit by Applodion concerning CR more accurately reflects the involvement of CR in the ongoing battle in Palma and achieves the clarification requested by Jim Michael.
 * Yes, it's a substantial improvement. Jim Michael (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it still ongoing?
I dont see any updates. Is the town now under insurgents control? Borysk5 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

A government victory?
Okay, I get that the government was able to retake the city, but it was utterly devastated by the attackers not to mention the fact that the lucrative contract with the French was conpromized. I would suggest calling it at least "Government tactical victory;Jihadist strategic victory". 79.164.72.106 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source calling it a Jihadist strategic victory? Applodion (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This one for example calls it an "ambitious and successful attack" on an "economicaly significant hub" and a "stunning failure" for security forces: https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-march-2021-palma-attack-and-the-evolving-jihadi-terror-threat-to-mozambique/. Another question is whether anyone has a source that calls the event a victory for Mozambican security forces. - 79.164.72.106
 * You raise a valid point. After looking at the sources again, the situation is indeed not clear-cut. I have removed "victory" from the infobox, as disputed outcomes are better described by detailed bullet points (as was already the case). Applodion (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)