Talk:Manila hostage crisis/Archive 2

Side issues
Certain side issues are being brought up and clarity on how they should be dealt with should probably be discussed.

For example:


 * On August 27, the Chinese embassy in the Philippines expressed their "anger" at the decision to cover Mendoza's coffin with the Flag of the Philippines during his funeral.

It does not make clear whose decision this was (the family's), it does not get the facts right (it was at a wake not a funeral), and it does not describe the reaction (authorities came, talked to the family, and removed the flag from the casket). Because it is incomplete in its facts and details it is misleading. I have removed it for now pending comments. Addendum: on reflection I have restored it but have tagged it for NPOV. Lambanog (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Flags at half mast
I'd like Deryk to please explain to me the significance of the image of both flags at half mast, plus a second image of one and not the other. I fail to understand why we need both images. I think the essential point, which can be made by not overusing images, is that HK and the Mainland ordered this symbolic gesture as a show of respect and mourning. Do we really need to dwell on the timing delay in the order given by Beijing? I think the significance, if any, would be lost on (or be trivial to) the average WP (ie non-HK) reader. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I kind of intend that as an implicit illustration of Hongkongers (including the mainstream Hong Kong media) criticising the Chinese central government for acting too slowly. It is indeed intended for extra value of reading for those who understand the sequence of events (either by reading the article or from other sources). Remove it if you think it really shouldn't be there, although in that case remember to change the caption of the half-mast x2 picture. --Deryck C. 02:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not something I have read - i may have missed it. If it's so important, it may warrant a line in Hong Kong media section. If not, there's no point having the image without an explanatory sentence because the message fails to come across. Personally, I think the HK media is often 'over the top', and criticism of Beijing for failing to act rapidly in this case is just plain rhetoric and jingoism they are so fond of. Knowing how decisions are made in Zhongnanhai, it would be understandable that an action like putting all of one's country's flags at half mast across the world is no small matter, and requires consensus of the politburo. The row is a parochial storm in a teacup. The gesture is important, and the delay is inconsequential. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely read that on a newspaper, am searching for that report online. Hong Kong newspapers are almost always over the top when it comes to opinions, but commenting on whether the newspapers are over the top would in turn be original research on our side. We're here to, erm, repeat what the newspapers have commented. --Deryck C. 04:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll let you get on with adding some relevant text; I'll leave the images in place. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I wonder whether we should leave the two pictures together or separate them into two sections (full-mast in HK media section, half-mast in government section). --Deryck C. 07:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a thought: everyone knows what half mast looks like. The only image we need is one showing the inconsistent positions (ie the one with the national flag up and the local flag at half. The other, where both are at half can easily be taken as read. what do you think? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would leave them both in. The number of pictures on this article is still low. --Deryck C. 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALSO
Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:
 * Just my 2 cents here, per my understanding of WP:ALSO (Take note of the underlined text below!), the section can be allowed to be reinserted but with an explicit explanation for the relevance of such link. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185♪♫™ 07:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Related person – made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005
 * Ischemia – restriction in blood supply

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all. Thus, although some links may not naturally fit into the body of text they may be excluded from the "See also" section due to article size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). Portal and Wikipedia-Books links are usually placed in this section.


 * Lambanog has asked for a deletion of the 1998 case article. Please add your comments here. Benjwong (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you and isn't he the sneaky fellow? I don't suppose he has became a fanatic? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am so incredibly sneaky I even informed Benjwong about it. On the other hand I'm not sure if I'm supposed to admire your allusions to fanaticism. Comes off rather blatant to me but maybe some would regard it as subtle?  Lambanog (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I've said before, please stop all your assuming and nothing of this would have happened at all in the very first place. But alas, you kept on assuming. Excerpt per WP:Don't assume:


 * --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing info
It seems like the article still misses the information about the criticism on the philippine president account where he could not be contacted by the HKSAR chief. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Other missing information:
 * Police initially believed in the early stages of the crisis that the hostages were South Koreans.
 * Apparently it is contrary to Philippine law to fatally shoot a hostage-taker that is not maltreating hostages. Lambanog (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Philippine president could not be contacted by HKSAR chief: mentioned in "Responses - Hong Kong government" section
 * "Apparently it is contrary to Philippine law to fatally shoot a hostage-taker that is not maltreating hostages." - I believe shooting a hostage with an M16 would count as maltreating.
 * There has been criticism that Mendoza wasn't shot earlier when he was exposed. This is the reason.  Human rights and all that.  Blame the human rights lawyers. Lambanog (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Police initially believed in the early stages of the crisis that the hostages were South Koreans." - not sure. Do you have a source which says that? --Deryck C. 09:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How the media covered the Grandstand carnage Lambanog (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two unrelated incidents. According to this, a Korean man was shot and killed in Manila a few hours before the tour-bus hijacking. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have added info myself. HK hostages were initially assumed to be South Koreans is confirmed in both accounts regardless of separate extra incident involving a South Korean. Lambanog (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Move from Manila hostage crisis to Quirino Grandstand hostage crisis
I think this move was really ill-advised. It was done without any consensus to do so and as this is a high-traffic article still on the Main Page, this was a Very Bad Idea™. Strange Passerby (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See also . Strange Passerby (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With no explanation forthcoming, and with the user who made the first move putting retired on his user page after I asked him, I'm reverting the move. I'm open to discussing this revert, but I think there was no consensus for a move in this case. Strange Passerby (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with "Manila hostage crisis" is being too broad-sense. Preferably the title should contain the word "Hong Kong". Or I suggest "Hong Kong hostage crisis in Manila" (c.f. 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that the article could be better titled; merely that moving the article without prior discussion when it's still high-visibility was definitely the wrong thing to do. Strange Passerby (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with Sameboat, but if it is removed on the homepage, do moving it, or else, I will repeat the action with the protection (and with a reasonable doubt). Ranel (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat to disrupt Wikipedia? Strange Passerby (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it's not, but Ranel, it would be beneficial to the project if you seek consensus first for any big stuff. You will definitely step on a lot of toes the way you did with that page move. and stressing a possible threat in bold is not a good idea. Oh, and according to the move log, you put in the retired tag. Cute, guess you couldn't accept what came your way. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the move, as Manila hostage crisis is more widely used in the media. "Quirino Grandstand hostage crisis" is a name hardly used by anybody, and can confuse our readers. But I also agree the article should have a better name. It's just that "Quirino Grandstand hostage crisis" is a step backwards.

"Hong Kong hostage crisis in Manila" is ambiguous as to how Hong Kong is involved in the incident. Another problem is that some of the hostages are Filipino, British or Canadian. Using "Hong Kong" to describe them all may be objectionable to some users, I'd imagine.

Personally I would pump for 2010 Manila hostage crisis, which was sadly discarded earlier.

In light of the heavy traffic of the article, I guess it's poor practice to move the page without any prior discussion. Threats of disruptive behaviour is certainly not acceptable - repeated page moving would constitute edit warring, I believe? Craddocktm (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I find myself in agreement once again with Craddock. It should stay at Manila hostage crisis (or 2010 Manila hostage crisis), and move protected. 'Quirino Grandstand hostage crisis' is too specific and an unlikely search term, and I suspect it will remain an unlikely way of disambiguating the article at a later stage.  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 09:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * About the protect thing, do you mean full-protect? Ranel5310 is already a confirmed user. Actually I don't think his action was malignant. But yes, he should discuss before act anyway. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant to prevent it from being moved to another namespace without a full consensus-yielding discussion – page-move vandals can be indefinitely blocked. Admins can do that if a page title isn't stable. For example, I recall that 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings was moved about eighteen times! That was a barrel of monkeys. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the name "Quirino Grandstand hostage crisis" is that the new name is completely unheard of anywhere outside Manila. Even when moved as such, we can't guarantee another hostage crisis won't happen in the same place as the future. In a nutshell: "Quirino Grandstand hostage crisis" is a non-solution. With an amount of news coverage almost comparable to the September 11 attacks of New York City, this crisis will certainly be the Manila hostage crisis down a long period of history. If other crises in Manila needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia, we can always add a top-of-page notice for disambiguation. --Deryck C. 10:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. I just ran into another round of double edit conflict with Ohconfucius and Sameboat. I must have a really really slow internet connection. --Deryck C. 10:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

About move protection: full move-protection (everyone can edit, but only admins can move) is an available option. I am happy to do that if that's what we need. --Deryck C. 10:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Curious. Is the amount of news coverage almost comparable to the September 11 attacks on New York?  Somehow I'd feel that is either an exaggeration, or if true, a sign this issue has been blown out of proportion.  If using the September 11 attacks as a basis for comparison I would note "New York Attacks" would be hopelessly too vague.  Even "World Trade Center Attacks" is too vague because aside from the September 11 attacks there was also the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  I'm getting the feeling the article is already weighted toward a Hong Kong perspective and there is a possibility it is getting unbalanced.  The large number of Chinese language sources without English translation runs contrary to the ideal and stretches the guidelines of the English Wikipedia.  Considering the circumstances, the significant interest of the Hong Kong Chinese community is understandable but there is a point such interest may start affecting, if it hasn't already, the article's objectivity.  For me, "2010 Manila hostage crisis" makes the most sense but will reserve judgment on the current title.  Lambanog (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do have the same feeling for you. I ain't interested in contributing this article actively (ZH version) because the coverage and POV lean to the Chinese/HK majority. However it doesn't justify we prevent such thing to happen in WP. It's natural that the editors use the Chinese source to back their words in this article. The policy/guideline only instruct us to use English source prior to anything else for EN WP, if that doesn't exist then reliable foreign source can be cited rationally. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The South China Morning Post has extensive and relatively unbiased coverage of all aspects of the event; it eschews the tabloid jingoism of the 'over the top' Chinese press - even the Ming Pao. We really should try and limit our use of these Chinese sources. I thikn I mentioned it briefly when discussing the China national flag two days ago. Need to start pruning. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Even n the Philippines it's predominantly caled as the Manila hostage-taking/crisis. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 10:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re Manila hostage crisis vs. Sep 11: yes. For the first time since 11 Sept 2001 all free TV channels in Hong Kong gave 3 hours of continuous live coverage of an emerging news event. I do understand that parts of this article are biasing towards the China / Hong Kong perspective; and I must note that covering all significant views is indeed what Wikipedia's NPOV policy is about. Views of Hong Kong media and Manila media should both be given coverage in proportion to their prominence, regardless of whether they're over the top. --Deryck C. 15:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Must've been a slow news week decade. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 04:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Re SCMP: the problem with SCMP is that their articles are not freely available on-line. This makes them even less verifiable than foreign-language sources. Of course, I'm not suggesting that SCMP is less reliable or unverifiable to an extent that doesn't meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, and do go ahead with replacing citations of Chinese news sources with SCMP ones. --Deryck C. 02:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leung
I suppose it's a shift of concern: I reckon not many outside Hong Kong would be concerned about the recovery progress of Jason Leung. Most are concerned about investigation outcomes on what happened on the coach, and about the tension between the Hong Kong and Manila governments and people. --Deryck C. 02:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, weight given to Jason's condition in the article does not justify much more column inches in a global perspective. The investigation, and the diplomatic tussles will and should be the focal point. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Development of Jason's condition should be detailed in the Aftermath -> Hostages section, rather than the table itself. The table column on "status" is for the status of the victim at the end of the siege. --Deryck C. 05:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think whatever the evolution of his condition should be limited and concise, so as not to give undue weight. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hostages table, again
Perhaps the names in the table should be reorganised into chinese form (ie in order of Name, middle name, last name). This would allow better functioning of the sort feature. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * actually you can apply the non-readable text before the readable text for the sorting purpose. For example,  4 Ken Leung . -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Report to China"
This phrase is somewhat strange: "the Philippine government also admitted that errors had been made and promised a thorough investigation, which they would report to China.". I'm assuming here that "China" means "Chinese government"? We should always be careful on Wikipedia in not equating the country (i.e. PRC) with the idea of "China", not necessarily because of the NPOV Dispute with Taiwan but rather because of the grammatical ambiguity of the term. "Chinese government" should never be simplified to "China", especially when the context is relatively sensative. Colipon+ (Talk) 04:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting that and do change "China" to "Chinese government". --Deryck C. 05:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Philippine National Police
Let's give credit where credit is due. The cops who effed up were from the Manila Police District. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 11:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Go do it. --Deryck C. 12:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Philippine media and public
Not an entirely helpful section with only one reference and no text (never believed this would happen, things usually go the other way round). Anyway I've reproduced the external link below, for those interested in restoring the section - with some text, please!


 * "Palace: No failure of leadership during hostage crisis", abs-cbnNEWS.com August 31, 2010

Deryck C. 12:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been complaints that the article is too HK-centric, and I tend to agree. I put the placeholders there hoping somebody would run with writing some text. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 3 possible explanations (listed in descending order of credibility):
 * A "Philippine media and public" section isn't a good solution to the problem (ie. there isn't much sentiment expressed by the Manila people not expressed in Hong Kong)
 * Those who started complaining the article was Hong Kong slanted can't actually be bothered to correct the problem. Unfortunately, Plato was right that one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
 * The article isn't Hong Kong slanted anymore.
 * No personal attacks intended, and correct me with your actions if my explanation was wrong! --Deryck C. 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence taken. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume I am being alluded to? Most of the sentiments expressed in Hong Kong have been expressed in the Philippines as well.  The Philippine government reaction section is pretty long and covers much of what might be found in an equivalent Philippine media and public reaction section.   I have expressed objection to one line of coverage I thought looked more like a sideshow fishing expedition and have provided detail and precision in an area that seemed to have a glaring omission but have otherwise not made a strenuous effort to add to the article because I did not want to get in the way of the energetic contributions being made by others.  Since it seems I'm being invited to do so now I may just take you guys up on the offer.  I hope you guys don't regret getting what you wished for.  :)  I do wonder though how much value added content there should be left to add in an article with over a hundred citations, but I think I still see a couple of holes. Lambanog (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing the new section, and it'd be great if you provide more detailed (probably inline footnotes) citations for the critics you quoted. --Deryck C. 02:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Still scouring the Net for citations, but at least the section goes a long way towards adding more "balance" to the article in terms of sorting out the viewpoints expressed. After all, the public's line is not necessarily the government's line. ;) --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Autonarratives
I just saw an edit summary mentioning adding autonarratives. I haven't yet studied what has been included, but I think these (whether Lee Ying-chuen, Joe Chan) are inherently unreliable at this stage, and should be used with extreme caution. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I quoted Joe Chan's account of what happened during the shootings. The account itself is singular and therefore inherently unreliable, however it has by now become the "official" story of what happened on the bus quoted both by newspapers and the Philippine police official inquiry. I doubt a more reliable (and different) narrative will ever emerge, and so it's safe to use Joe Chan's account as long as we cite him clearly. --Deryck C. 02:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Filipino Newspaper Articles
While I was in the Philippines (Cebu City), while this happened, I have kept newspapers relating the hostage situation. Would they be any help to the main article? Adamdaley (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been doing the same in Hong Kong. However, many of the newspaper sources I cited were in Chinese, so it'd be good if you can find equivalent citations in English-language newspapers from Cebu. --Deryck C. 13:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Disputed lead
I have problems with the lead. It makes suggestive conclusions that are open to dispute in terms of their precision. Problematic wording: "As a result" – this indicates cause and effect. I have tried to change to the more neutral "At the end of" which does not make any assumption as to cause and effect. Problematic wording: " the ensuing shoot-out, and a botched rescue attempt by MPD" – this would seem to indicate that the "shoot-out" and the "rescue attempt" are separate things. Are they? As far as I understand it in the context given, no, they are one and the same. "Rescue attempt" is actually a little vague as it can also encompass the negotiations. In the interests of clarity "rescue assault" might be better. Dave1185 since you are opposing my edits please explain your opposition and your referral to WP:SYN. What synthesis do you see? As things stand I think the lead is in violation of NPOV. [1 edit for clarity] Lambanog (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On further reflection, my problem with the lead isn't about neutrality as much as factual accuracy.

"As a result of the ten-hour siege, the ensuing shoot-out, and a botched rescue attempt by MPD watched by millions on live television news, eight of the hostages and Mendoza died and nine other people were injured." The statement looks to me like an factually inaccurate statement going by the sources. The siege didn't kill eight hostages. The shoot-out didn't kill eight hostages. The rescue assault didn't kill eight hostages (although the way the negotiations were handled might). In the end Mendoza killed the hostages. It is a poorly constructed, factually inaccurate sentence, that is as far as I know also original research unless there is a source that can back it up. I haven't read everything and may be unfamiliar with a critical statement or detail reported somewhere so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but from what I have seen the sentence cannot be supported by any  source I'm familiar with. [1 grammar edit] Lambanog (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if another party can address this issue quickly. The edit I was trying to make should be an uncontroversial fix that retains most of the current statement. The statement I am disputing is unsourced and possibly falls afoul of WP: BLP. Since my edit of the current statement is being opposed, an alternative left to me is removing the entire statement based on the points I have just raised and WP: BURDEN. I would prefer to simply have the minor edit I was attempting applied. Lambanog (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To expedite a quick resolution to this matter and so the article can be removed of tags I have posted a discussion thread on the NPOV noticeboard here. Lambanog (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why I thought the wording was suitable at the time was that we didn't know specifically what caused the casualties, but was likely due to a combination of factors. We just know what the end result was, so the phrase was necessarily an interpolation. IT can be strongly argued that although Mendoza was responsible, we don't even know for sure the casualties were all suffered at his hands. A number of factors were certainly at play. The sentence is just a summary of the situation. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On this issue I agree wholeheartedly with Lambanog. In the absence of official findings, I consider it unsafe to conclude on causal relations in the article, let alone the lead. In fact, I would go further and remove the wording "botched rescue attempt", since sufficient criticisms are provided in the last sentence of the lead.Craddocktm (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the above comments as a neutral from Ohconfucius and a support from Craddocktm on this issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  In the absence of any more opposition, I intend to implement an edit to the article along the lines that were reverted by Dave1185 within the day unless more objections are raised or someone else wishes to do so earlier.  Lambanog (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to striving for better wording for the lead section. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 08:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV of article is being undermined
A perfectly sound edit that was the subject of the "Disputed lead" section above was reverted by Dave1185 for supposed synthesis. When asked to explain, no explanation was forthcoming. Dave1185 then adds a questionable link to a disconnected episode that is of interest probably only to a Hong Kong centric viewpoint if even that (the addition of an explanation and references of its supposed relevance serving only to highlight how not obvious any such relation is—a See also link shouldn't require references—and in this case the references still leave the topic's relevance unclear). Moreover a general self-explanatory link to another well-known hostage taking situation involving foreigners with strong parallels is removed because it supposedly doesn't have any relevance.

This is not a Hong Kong article. It is an international article that should take a global perspective. The amount of content based on Chinese language sources is already of concern. To then have other relevant perspectives shunted aside and marginalized simply to emphasize a topic of dubious relevance that seem to cater to a particular audience indicates a point-of-view being pushed. This article is unbalanced and does not have a neutral point-of-view. Lambanog (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't assume things around here and another thing, even though I can read Chinese text that doesn't meant that I'm from HK. Pertaining to your SYN question that why I haven't answered it previously on Friday, I can only say that I have more important things to attend to in RL than to WP (FPS, it was over the weekend!), which is supposed to be fun and enjoyable for everyone (to read, to discuss and to improve/edit). So by the time I got back to this thread, I saw that the disputed text has amended (but still balanced, IMO) due to perhaps some input from neutral parties above? I thus assumed that it has ended and so I moved on. Secondly, you might want to read up further on my point being raised above instead of starting a new thread here to question my agenda when I don't even have one in the very first place. BTW, I'm all for NPOV as well hence my inclusion of reports with reference sources from all parties, ranging from HK to PHL to FRA to SGP, you'd see that my sources are verified, valid and balanced (which may or may not be perceived by you that I'm writing for the opponent, and in any case I will gladly admit that I'm writing for the opponent! Per this statement from WP:WFTE: "It is the mark of good Wikipedia editors to be able to understand and present various POV, including those they find distasteful." ). IMHO now, it seem to us that you're getting very attached to the article with every passing edits of yours here, correct me if I got it wrong. Lastly, I want to praise you for observing 1RR. Thank you and best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine. Now be so good as to answer the original question I brought up in the previous section above:  Why did you revert and think my edit in the lead was a violation of WP:SYN? You still haven't answered it. Lambanog (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for third opinion
Considering the dispute that we clearly have regarding this article I wish to request a third opinion on the matter. Dave1185 are you willing to participate in the process and to work towards stating a neutral explanation of the disagreement? Lambanog (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I can... but on the condition that you answer Benjwong's question to you first. Anything less, you may save it. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What question would that be? Lambanog (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to say that you're getting sloppy but the question you've conveniently missed/skirted can be found →here←. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see a question there. For the sake of clarity simply quote the question Benjwong asked that you wish me to answer here. Lambanog (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, Ben suggested somewhere on this talk page that the Manila blackmail incident was relevant to this case because some Hong Kong journalist mentioned it. Therein is the implication that if a HK rag can draw a connection, we must also do. But then, I've never read about this connection in the quality press, and i'm tempted to believe this is just one tabloid trying to sensationalise it. Being a view expressed in one column doesn't make it notable or relevant if it's a red herring. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: So as I understand the request for a 3O, the disagreement is based on this edit. Per WP:SEEALSO, the See also section is supposed to be just a list of other articles, except for places where some explanation about the link to the article is needed. In this case, I see no reason to include such an explanation. I think it's okay to have the link there, just without the explanation. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for providing a third opinion on Manila hostage crisis. Given your opinion, would it be okay to also add a see also link to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbing? Lambanog (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings (the one you linked to is a redirect to the article about one of the victims). I don't really see a reason to include a link to that article; what's the connection to the Manila hostage crisis? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, the verbiage needed to be deleted. It was put there by some editors in order to make some semblance of a connection with the subject, to justify its inclusion. I feel that the key issue which is at dispute is relevance. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's fair. So we're looking for a connection between the Manila hostage crisis and the Manila blackmail incident. As someone who's not familiar with either incident, I have to admit that I'm not seeing the connection, aside from the fact that they took place in Manila and involved the police. Is that all? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a nutshell. There is a fair amount of pointiness on both sides of the dispute. One editor, seeing the blackmail incident mentioned in a write-up this case by [name of newspaper], said this therefore makes it relevant. He, and another editor are tag-teaming over its inclusion. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. One newspaper mentioning it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included. As an active editor here, what's your opinion? Do you think the link should be kept or not? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another connection between the Manila hostage crisis and the Manila blackmail incident is that Francisco Villaroman, who took over the Manila District Police after the previous chief took leave because of the hostage crisis, was accused of being involved in the blackmail incident: . However, this connection does not appear to have been addressed in the article, and hence the need for the verbiage. As I see it, the current issue turns on another issue: whether the abovesaid connection should be mentioned in the main body of the article. If yes, we can include a link to the blackmail incident in the text and there would be no need to provide a separate link in the see also section. If no, the blackmail incident is irrelevant and should not be mentioned anywhere in the article. Either way, I don't see the need for the blackmail incident to appear in the see also section. Craddocktm (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that if this was the Francisco Villaroman article, but it's not. Wasn't Magtibay involved in the blackmail incident, and Villaroman was in the hostage crisis? Is the connection really just that one stepped down and the other filled in for that position? That sounds like too tenuous of a connection, so in that case I would agree that the blackmail thing is irrelevant and shouldn't be included. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see both episodes as only having a tangential relationship with the central subject, and I do not see why this should be mentioned in the article, nor linked in the 'see also' section at all. Someone thought about including Philippine National Police incidents -that would have made sense if such an article existed - fact is, it's only a redirect. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to agree with that. If there was a List of Philippine National Police incidents or something, then perhaps we could discuss. I actually liked having a link to List of hostage crises before, so per our discussion here, I'm going to be bold and revert back to that link. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ann. Would any of the dissenters like to comment, before we wrap this up as resolved? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection with the edit by HelloAnnyong. I would remove the POV banner myself but I wouldn't want the possibility of 3RR being brought up, so if anyone wishes to do that I won't object.  To be fair to Benjwong—although I disagree strongly with his linking of the 1998 Manila blackmail incident article,  his rationale for it, and how at the time it expressed allegations as fact—after I expressed my disagreement, he has not since edited to include it.  Dave1185's reaction will likely determine if this particular issue is settled or not. Lambanog (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article nomination?
Hi everyone who's been contributing to this article - the contents of the article are more or less stable (since mid-September it's been growing only at about a paragraph every other month) now that we're about half a year from the sad day. I see that most of this article are up to WP:GA status, should we go and nominate it? --Deryck C. 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sleetman's edit
This edit by User:Sleetman is not useful because it has nothing to do with this incident. Also, the fact that the Chinese government has control over the media in China is widely known. There is no need to highlight this fact. Especially since this incident doesn't even directly involve the Chinese government, they really have no reason to be biased in their reporting. Thus adding such a note in the article is not proper, sourced or not.— Chris! c / t 20:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from Wikipedia formalities...I think you're missing the point myself and Dave1185 are adding the comment about the institutional structure of Global Times is not because it (did not) had something to do with the Manila Hostage Crisis, but because of that publications' comments about the Philippines as a chaotic country. Also, your logic that something shouldn't be highlighted (not sure what you mean by that term) because it's widely known (but then not everybody knows about the relationship between the Chinese media and the Chinese government) leads to ridiculous parallel examples: it's widely known that millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II, but it would be absurd to say that the Holocaust shouldn't be reported on the Nazi's Wikipedia page because everybody knew it happened.Sleetman (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think this note is unnecessary. Clearly all media have their opinions on different issues. The publications' comments about the Philippines as a chaotic country is clearly their opinion and may not necessarily true. I think this is absolutely clear to readers. My main issue with this is that its inclusion is a violation of WP:NPOV. It is biased to specifically note that Chinese government controls its media as if to tell readers to disregard their position or opinion in response to the incident. Whether or not their comment is true really is not important. Lastly, your Nazi example is not parallel. The Holocaust is a historic event that is committed by the Nazi. Because it is directly related, it must be included.— Chris! c / t 23:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, if an WP:NPOV tag was put on every qualifying comment (like the ones myself, Dave1185 and LeaveMan are advocating for) nearly every article on Wikipedia would be NPOV under your criteria. I also find your equivocation of the Global Times' calumny of the Philippines as a chaotic country (may not necessarily true) just because of the incompetence of that country's police force disturbing and, quite frankly, pathetic and by association I find nothing wrong about dismissing the views of an editorial owned by the Chinese government on this specific issue. The fact that their comments might or might not be true isn't really the point, it's more the danger of taking the GLobal Times as a legitimate news source without any comment of qualification. Lastly, I should point out that the changes you are agitating for are so far supported by nobody but you.Sleetman (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That fact may not necessarily be true because I am sure one can find evidence that either support or counter that point of view. Anyhow that is not the point. Back to this, I am bringing this to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to get more inputs.— Chris! c / t 01:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Chris, you need to refresh yourself with Wikipedia all over again, watch this. I believe our idea of NPOV and V originated from there, where's yours? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverted, read WP:Verifiability. On another note, I was going to revert you initially but Sleetman beat me to it. Best. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You still haven't response to my concern. Besides WP:V is not the only policy, there is also WP:NPOV. I can add a thousand sourced facts to the article but that doesn't mean they should be added.— Chris! c / t 20:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, you just breached 3RR. Discuss this and keep on it but don't revert again, last warning. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding you lack of understanding of the rule, I am already discussing. The problem is on you who keep avoiding my questions above.— Chris! c / t 20:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Already explained and questioned you on your own talk page, or do you want a second opinion on your 3RR right now? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, it is very clever of you avoiding answering why you think this "fact" should be included. It is amazing how you ask for a discussion and don't even try to discuss the issue. I am not going to even answer to your accusation above.— Chris! c / t 21:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you have no intention to discuss at all given your non-response to my questions. This is crazy, you ask me to discuss and then you don't discuss.— Chris! c / t 21:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't help thinking that you are a clueless tadpole to the working mechanics of the human body, everybody needs to sleep!!! Sleetman's opinion is now known to you and I've already explained this to you on your talk page, what more do you want? A third opinion??? Note that I already given you a second one by bringing in an Admin → Less Heard VanU. Btw, please go and read up on WP:LAME. I'm done talking to you here. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is getting unhelpful. We've drifted from discussing whether that one-line remark about Global Times should be added, to a series of arguably personal attacks which amount to Dave1185 and Sleetman bullying Chrishmt0423. I've protected the article in the version before the edit war began. Please come back to a proper discussion on the sentence, not fleeting wiki-lawyering about the rules and who violated them. --Deryck C. 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be safe to assume that if someone wanted to know more on the Global Times, they would follow the link and see that it is produced by the People's Daily, a state-run paper? A particular mention here in this article wouldn't make much of a difference if a reader followed the link and found the same information. Why would a mention here be particularly necessary, if the article on Global Times itself provides adequate information? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally support 李博杰 on this. That Global Times' remark was put under the "Chinese government" section has already created the allusion that is necessary for the article, and should the reader know anymore, they will click the Global Times link. Job done on this article's behalf. I appreciate Dave, Chris and Sleetman's long discussion on various Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV; however, I think the entire discussion missed the point that these two policies only decide what shouldn't be on Wikipedia. They never say that if a piece of information is verifiable and neutral, it must be kept. On this occasion, I agree that the remark is verifiable; I won't debate on whether it's neutral (Chinese government, duh); but I'd strongly suggest that adding this remark is unhelpful to the article. Those who want to know about that would've clicked onto the Global Times link anyway. --Deryck C. 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know how I've been "bullying" Chris aside from calling his equivocation of the stereotype of the Philippines as "chaotic" as pathetic. If you don't think that isn't true, I think it would say something more about you than it would about me. Your discussion about Wikipedia tags also undermines your argument as our argument is that the comment about the institutional structure of the Global times (which is verifiable) SHOULD be kept on. Furthermore, without a qualifying statement there's a danger people will take the comments by GlobalTimes at face value. These qualifying comments about organizations/people publishing critical opinions about other subject matters happen all over Wikipedia entries, so I don't see why we should make an exception for this case. Sleetman (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The qualifying statement is already there: the article clearly states that "Global Times called the Philippines..." rather than just "The Philippines is...", and the link to Global Times will suffice to direct the reader to the necessary information about who actually runs Global Times. I believe our readers are intelligent enough not to take Global Times' statement at its face value, given that it is a piece of clearly attributed opinion. However, if it really is an issue, we can change the sentence to "In an analysis of the event, the state-run Global Times called the Philippines...". Does that sound like a good solution? --Deryck C. 22:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the solution of putting the qualifying statement "state-run" in front of the Global Times publication. Although there is one thing i'd like to point out...there's an oft-repeated saying, "silence is complicity." The fact that people would say it's okay to omit the partiality of an organization is in itself an ideological position that implicitly lends undue credibility to that organizations' works...which is why I would argue is the reason why Dave1185 and I have such a problem with the omission of the qualifying statement. Sleetman (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sleetman, I've clarify that you didn't bully me. So, I hope there is no ill-feeling between you and me. Thanks Deryck Chan for being able to explain what I meant more clearly. I support Deryck Chan's proposal as a compromise. Adding state-run before Global Times is an excellent solution.— Chris! c / t 05:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now that is a workable statement and I would second it.-- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for commenting sensibly. I agree with both that such addition is unnecessary. I still think that it is very unneutral, but that is an opinion that many of you don't share. To clarify, Sleetman didn't personal attack or bully me, he merely state his reasons why he think it should be add, which is fine. Dave1185 on the other hand has not even join the discussion on whether this should be added. All he did is personal attacking or bullying me, which is not fine. I think he should be warned that such behavior is not proper, and that if he wants to discuss, then discuss sensibly.— Chris! c / t 18:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deryck, you see the kind of uncalled for attitude Chris kept on spewing? Anyway, hell hath not fury like a woman scorned. Like I've said before, I'm done talking to him here. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 23:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Sleetman, Chris and Dave all agreed on the compromise edition, I've unprotected the article and made the relevant edit. --Deryck C. 07:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)