Talk:Mamasapano clash

Potential POV issues
From reading reliable sources such as BBC and NYTimes, it seems unreasonable to call this am "ambush." Current information seems to point to this as a lack of communication of operations. An ambush would imply that there was a military force actively waiting for the police to conduct this raid. It is my opinion that additional sources beyond the one (Philstar) be consulted, to find a more neutral point of view on the nature of this attack. Please also begin discussion of possible naming of this article away from using the word "ambush." Mamyles (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I understand an ambush is a surprise attack conducted on purpose (yes they were actively waiting for the police force else how would they have killed 49 elite policemen?), how can this even come close to pushing a point of view?--Catlemur (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the account in the NYTimes, the minority force was in the process of finalizing a ceasefire with the government. Before the ceasefire was finalized, the island was seemingly attacked by a force of 500 military-looking police, with no warning. According to the NYTimes, the ceasefire required prior notification for police operations of this size. The evidence as described in NYTimes and BBC articles make this sound much more like a miscommunication on the fault of the government, rather than an intentional ambush to kill police officers. Please try to incorporate more sources and opposing points of view into the article. Given the current evidence, it is also my opinion that this not be named as an "ambush" just yet. Mamyles (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So the police unintentionally violated a treaty and the rebels accidentally shot and killed the policemen considering it an act of war by the government, making the death of 54 people a huge misunderstanding?--Catlemur (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be their point of view, and from my reading of multiple reliable sources that is also my understanding of what likely happened. The rebels thought there was a ceasefire, but were set upon by a sizable military force that attacked without provocation or warning. Calling that an ambush is the POV of the police and goverment, but does not represent the opposing viewpoint.
 * I would consider this an attack, operation, or incident if the current information holds true. Would you support renaming this article "January 2015 Maguindanao attack"? That would be neutral from both the POV of the rebels and the police. Mamyles (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I oppose removing the word ambush from the article, yet we should mention that the militants attacked because they considered the incursion of the police illegal and a brake of previous treaties.--Catlemur (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will note that in the first source in the reference section, "ambush" is used only in the context of quoted statements from the government. The second source focuses on the perspective of the rebels, and does not contain the word ambush at all. Why do you oppose renaming this article to an attack, operation, or incident? Mamyles (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you purposely ignore the part of the story when the rebels killed a group of defenseless policemen who had run out of ammunition and were retreating, the policemen were leaving the area (they already arrested the bomb makers) anyway when the "ambush" took place.At this point this seems like nitpicking with the goal of justifying the attack, de facto POV pushing. I still wish to include the fact that the rebels considered the police patrol an invading force. It remains an ambush because it was a surprise attack, the background of the story has nothing to do with name of the military tactic used.--Catlemur (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The accusations of killing wounded police will need to be included in the article, yes. I don't see how that has to do with calling this an ambush. The police launched a surprise force against the rebels' island, but they did not do so by lying in wait, so that would not be an ambush. Mamyles (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I included the MILF perspective (POV tag removed), and renamed it Maguindanao clash.Undo it if you disagree.--Catlemur (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking better already - thanks for all your work improving this article. Mamyles (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Move protected
It looks like a patrolling administrator has move protected this article due to too many moves. I am personally satisfied with the current name, 2015 Mamasapano clash, however am open to arguments for changing it again. The current name specifies the city rather than the province for precision, and describes the event as a "clash" which is accurate. I think that this is different than a battle, ambush, or raid, and 'misencounter' is wordy and ambiguous. Mamyles (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Mamasapano misencounter would suffice for as per WP:COMMONNAME because most people, especially the media, refer to the incident as such. Anime (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, article should be at 2015 Maguindanao clash as per WP:COMMONNAME. Maguindanao is more recognizable to people and was more used in the headlines than the unfamiliar " Mamasapano".--RioHondo (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like half of our references have "Maguindanao" in the title, and half have "Mamasapano." It would therefore seem acceptable to use the more precise location. Mamyles (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer "Mamasapano clash". We don't have to be precise on the year. This could make it harder to search for the article in the future. For example, I can't remember by now which year the Batasang Pambansa bombing occurred. – H T  D  04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the move. The 2015 incident is the most known and notable Mamasapano clash, assuming there were other similar incident that happened in the same place. I also support using "Mamasapano" compared to "Maguindanao". Knowing Maguindanao is a strife-torn province, there are likely similar clashes that happened within the province including areas outside Mamasapano. 2011 Japan earthquake for example is titled 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. --Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support removing '2015' as well. Would we need a formal move request to do so? Mamyles (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As this is under move protect, an RM is needed for a move. As for prior clashes, this town is rather new, so there's good reason to believe that this is the first, or at least the first notable military engagement in the area. If there's a next event at this place, then we should consider adding the year. – H T  D  02:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mamasapano clash I believe is still better than "misencounter". The term "misencounter" is against WP:NPOV. Even if the media describe the incident as a misencounter most sources would put quotation marks on the word misencounter like this: " Mamasapano 'misencounter' " implying that the term is non-neutral. The incident was describe as a misencounter in an effort to downplay or lessen further sociopolitical damage from the incident. Besides its undeniable that the incident was a clash, a combat between two or more parties. Also the media begun to use the term Mamasapano clash or Enkwentro sa Mamasapano (English:Encounter in Mamasapano). Only initial reports use 'misencounter'--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I have reverted edits by that made the top bold text and infobox summary say 'misencounter.' Unless consensus is made here to rename the article, such text should say 'clash' to remain consistent with the article title. Mamyles (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH, the reason why "misencounter" is almost always in "scare quotes" is because they're quoting someone. That, and it is bad English. Either way, when talking about this encounter and when not quoting anyone, the reliable sources have been shifting to "clash", That word is still not that okay for me, but that's how reliable sources have called this event by now so that should be good enough.
 * Re: bold text, MOS:LEAD is appropriate reading. Find for "Mississippi river floods". – H T  D  02:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2015
2015 Mamasapano clash → Mamasapano clash – as per informal discussion above Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to Mamasapano clash per convention, as there has only ever been one event called a 'clash' in this city. Mamyles (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support VandVictory (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015
Please change "Combined MILF, BIFF, Private militia: 250 (PNP estimate)" to "No official body count" because the 250 estimate that the former SAF chief Napenas had declared is just a specualtion since aside from the fact that there was no actual body count, there was no other evidence to prove his claim. It was not even an official PNP estimate because Napenas statement was just his own personal opinion and doesn't represent the view of the PNP.

Stormguys (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's an "official body count" for the MILF of 18. Would you agree in changing "(PNP estimate)" to "(Napeñas estimate)"? – H T  D  15:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree in just changing it to "(Napenas estimate)" since some readers may still misunderstood it and presume it to be an official estimate especially that this is under the casualties and loss tab of a popular internet dictionary. I am for changing the figures from 250 to 18 since this is the official estimate of the MILF with the corresponding names of their dead indicated. This is in contrast to Napenas estimate which has no reliable basis aside from his personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormguys (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur. Although Napeñas may speak officially for PNP, there is no underlying evidence to prove so far. Unlike the figures that came from MILF, which in this case, is the "reliable" biased figure coming from their own ranks. This position I have may change when PNP rises evidence which can be appropriate for contextual sources.Schadow1 (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is, switching to "No official body count" to "250" doesn't help the reader at all. The BIFF and JI don't have their own official body counts. Napenas' estimate of 250 is as reliable as the 44 SAF dead; who knows there might be other people dead from the ranks? In either case, an inquiring reader would know that the Napenas estimate is at best that, an "estimate", seeing that the person is from the other side of the battle making estimates for his enemies. – H T  D  02:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If BIFF and other militias death toll cannot be proven through body count, then Napenas should’ve at least an acceptable level of evidence or a sound basis in arriving at his 250 estimate. The problem with Napenas’ estimate is the questionable logic of how he had arrived at this figure. We must also take into account the fact that his estimate was opposed by the MILF. What make us believe Napenas’ claim and not that of the MILF or vice-versa? As a popular internet dictionary, Wikipedia should only provide information that has at least an acceptable level of accuracy. If the BIFF and other militia have no official count, then leave it blank. It is far better to not give information than to provide a figure that has a high probability of being inaccurate. With this, we are helping readers by not giving them speculative figures. I therefore request that the "Combined MILF, BIFF, Private militia: 250 (PNP estimate)" be removed since there is already an official body count of 18 for the MILF but only speculative figures for the other groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormguys (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently, no one from JI is claiming that Marwan is dead, and the only basis that we are using is the FBI's statement that he is dead. That's basically the same with Napenas' estimate; a third party claiming casualty count of another. I dunno if Napenas himself was on the frontlines or elsewhere, but his pronouncements have some sort of merit. I don't think everyone would put in "No official body count" for JI, considering the MILF had been denying that they've even know that he is/was there, right? – H T  D  15:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The FBI's statement is much more meritorious compared with Napenas' estimate. FBI has a reliable basis in saying that Marwan is dead. They had the DNA testing of Marwan's finger confirming that he was indeed the one killed by the SAF operatives. Napenas' estimate simply doesn't have that level of proof. BTW there is already a count of 18 for MILF and 1 for the JI bombers under the casualties and losses tab which are official counts as per MILF and FBI. What we don't have is the reliable count for the combined MILF, BIFF, Private Militias. It is therefore justified to put in "No official count" otherwise just remove the "Combined MILF, BIFF, Private militia: 250 (PNP estimate)" part.--Stormguys (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, lemme get this this straight. It boils down to taking the word of the FBI that they had Marwan's finger, and it's a match to the DNA from his brother, against taking the word of Napenas who led the actual operation, although he wasn't actually there(?). In other words, it's "taking the word" of people saying "this is the casualty count of our enemies", and we'd take the word of the FBI and throw Napenas under the bus. – H T  D  16:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Marwan, Usman and Jemaah Islamiyah in the Infobox
Should Jemaah Islamyah really be in the infobox? I don't think Jemaah Islamiyah as an organization was a participant in the encounter. If we treat JI as a participant, then it would be a two man army composing of Zulkifli Abdhir (Marwan) and Abdul Basit Usman with themselves as commanders? Also Marwan was recently tagged as founder of Khalifa Islamiyah Mindanao KIM a local umbrella group composing of JI, BIFF and Abu Sayyaff and some MILF "rogue" elements. Usman is also tagged as commander for KIM in the Cotabato/Maguindanao theater. How shall we deal with this?--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bomb makers were personally targeted. It is their names that are on most international most-wanted lists, not one of their organizations. I think we could just consider them as individuals in the infobox, not attributing them to an group there. Mamyles (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It is very clear that Zulkifli bin Hir is a member of Jemaah Islamiyah which is a known terrorist group worldwide. He can found his own group and it is his calling then. Still, authorities will attribute him and his lackeys to the Jemaah Islamiyah. --Anime (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Marwan is a member of the Jemaah Islamiyah. There were no other members of the JI to back him up during the operation. I think that the JI, and any other groups which they are members in (except the BIFF which was clearly involved) shouldn't be included in the infobox still. Jemaah Islamiyah was not in Mamasapano at that time as an organization neither is the KIM (except the BIFF). This would be different I think if it was a terrorist offensive, if Marwan and Usman made a bombing and made claims to the attacks and link a certain organization they are members of to the attacks.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of perished individuals' names
I've removed a long list of special forces individuals that died in this event. I do not believe that this article is the proper place to put these. They are not notable, per WP:ONEEVENT, and their names do not aid in understanding or describing this event. It may be more appropriate to put such individuals into a list, such as List of individuals who died in Mamasapano clash, but even then the list would seem to serve no purpose to satisfy WP:MEMORIAL. We already do include all of the names in the image File:Fallen_44_PNP_SAF.jpg, which should be enough. Mamyles (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I've reverted your insert of the list of dead for the reason above. Mamyles (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Flag of militia
I've reverted edits that added the Philippine flag to the militia in the infobox. This is because the militia were not fighting under the Philippine flag, or for the Philippine government. Indeed, they were actually fighting against the Philippine flag. Mamyles (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * They are Filipino citizens and there is no reliable source to support your claim that they tore, destroyed, or desecrated the flag. Soldiers and policemen neither fought under a Philippine flag. In fact, they never brought such one in the operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.72.229 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The police may have never brought a physical flag along with them but in essence they represent the Philippine government. They are authorities. The militia is a private army under the command/ownership of a private individual so it is inappropriate to add such flag. For example "foreign volunteers" in the infobox at the War in Donbass. No flags for Russian, German, Spanish, volunteers supporting the Ukrainian rebels because these fighters are not fighting in behalf of their government.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In English, the semantic statement of fighting under a flag means to fight for a particular government. Perhaps counter-intuitively for non-native folks, it does not actually mean they are fighting with a Battle ensign. Likewise, fighting against a flag means fighting against that particular government.
 * Regardless, the flag next to groups in the infobox means they were fighting for that organization. The militia were actually fighting against the Philippine government. Mamyles (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Show me a piece of evidence that the Ampatuans rebel against the government, just like the MILF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.88.29 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No one here has insinuated that anyone in particular rebels against the government. However, it is clear that the private militia were not fighting for the Philippine government on this occasion, therefore should not have a Philippine flag in the infobox. Mamyles (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell me what is the citizenship of Ampatuan and the rest of his militias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.88.29 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of a flag here, in a military conflict infobox, does not indicate citizenship. It indicates what organization they are fighting for in this conflict. The private militias are clearly not fighting for the Philippine government, which is what that flag represents. Thus why they are called "private" militias. Furthermore, it is confusing to have the flag set as Philippine, as that suggests that the Philippine government was fighting against itself.
 * If an Ampatuan militia flag exists, that would be appropriate to use for "Bahnarin Ampatuan", but as the "private militas" could be comprised of many different groups, their affiliation is unknown and should remain noflag. Mamyles (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This clash was a combination of insurgent and criminal (civil) elements. Therefore, it shouldn't be treated strictly as a military engagement.  If there is doubt about the flags, then we should leave them out. Cla68 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

BizNews Asia
For those of you editing from the Philippines, it appears that BizNews Asia in its March 2015 issues went into great detail on this incident, including a detailed timeline of what happened and the background leading up to the battle. That magazine said there was a total of 2,000 insurgents involved, including BIFF, MILF, and local criminal gangs. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

RESULT
The result should not indicate a victory for the Governmant Forces since it is clear that they are tactically defeated by MILF Forces in the encounter after the neutralization of the target terrorist. The fact that it is titled "Mamasapano Clash" pertained not only to the neutralization of Marwan but also to the Encounter between the SAF Troopers and the MILF Forces. The event in Mamasapano can be divided into two events. The operation on Marwan is a police operation while the encounter with MILF was clearly a military one. If we call this a victory for the Government Forces, we are implying that the SAF Troopers overcome the MILF Forces also, which is not the case. The defeat of the SAF troopers in Mamasapano is so complete that the GRP peace panel needs to intervene for a ceasefire and that the Philippine Army conducted a rescue operation on the pinned down SAF elements. Many people even call this the 2nd Mamasapano Massacre and the SAF themselves and their family are crying for justice. To call it a victory for the SAF, be it Phyrric or not, is misleading. If we consider the police operation on Marwan as successful, then we should be more specific. We can indicate the successful Law Enforcement Operation on the terrorist and then mention also the tactical defeat from the hands of the MILF Forces. If we insist on calling this as a Phyrric victory for the Government, then we should change the title of this page to "Law Enforcement Operation on Marwan", otherwise, it will be prone to misiterpretation. Readers will assume that the SAF defeated the MILF forces in the area since the title "Mamasapano Clash" has its emphasis on the military part of the event. Changing the title to "Law Enforcement Operation on Marwan" will at least shifts the emphasis and thought of the article to the law enforcement operation part of the event and hence, can be called a phyrric victory fo the SAF. But as long the title of the article is "Mamasapano Clash", the emphasis and focus is on the encounter between the SAF and the MILF, and therefore the result should be called "MILF Tacical Victory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.208.205.247 (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mamasapano clash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150225111952/http://awedding.org/tag/mamasapano-mayor-disputes-napenas-claim-on-milf-casualties.html to http://awedding.org/tag/mamasapano-mayor-disputes-napenas-claim-on-milf-casualties.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210165748/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/104807/mamasapano-mayor-disputes-napenas-claim-on-milf-casualties to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/104807/mamasapano-mayor-disputes-napenas-claim-on-milf-casualties
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150131001946/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/104093/filipinos-pay-tribute-to-fallen-44 to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/104093/filipinos-pay-tribute-to-fallen-44
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150131220931/http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/01/28/is-marwan-dead-or-not-reports-vary/ to http://manilastandardtoday.com/2015/01/28/is-marwan-dead-or-not-reports-vary/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced
I couldn't find the source that described the event as a "tactical vicory" for the MILF. I am removing the description from the body and the infobox for now. May be added again with RS. In addition to RS, it would need attribution, too, since it would most probably violate NPOV without attribution. Thanks. -Crisantom (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)