Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moro conflict


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The history of an article does not need to be deleted if WP:TNTing is desired. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 10:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Moro conflict

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Starting this AfD per discussion on the talk page of the article. As stated by multiple users, including, this article has significant POV issues, and is written in a non-neutral manner. While the arrangement is not un-notable, the proposal of this AfD is to delete per WP:TNT with the support of the community, to create a more neutral article which does not attempt to point fingers at any of the sides of the conflict. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Arquenevis engaged in massive abuse of inline cleanup tags, falsely tagging information sourced by reliable sources and then proceeded to falsely claim that the sources in question were "blogs" run by "Moro groups" and that it was "partisan". Is this a "blog" run by a "Moro group"? There was no consensus on the talk page for deletion. In fact RightCowLeftCoast was the only person who suggested AfD. Rajmaan (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This line: "The root of the conflict originates in the Spanish and American wars against the Moros" is not neutral. There is a conflict, it cast the Moros as victims. This among many other lines cast this article from the POV of the Moros and it is not written neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There are quite a number of questionable POV problem points made in the article. The article itself engages in fingerpointing and a number of sources themselves fail to keep in line with WP:RS rules. As an example: "The problem in Mindanao have been rooted since the arrival of Spanish to the Moro areas."


 * Many of the sources linked are self-published material, partisan, and/or fail to contain key points suggested in the article. There are rules on Wikipedia against self-published media as stated on WP:RS


 * Furthermore, there are also attempts to use language to mask biased opinions by lifting editorials. This is an inappropriate use of an intext attribution :


 * ''"The Moro National Liberation Front published an open letter to the United States President Barack Hussein Obama and demanded to know why America is supporting what they described as Philippine colonialism against the Moro Muslim people and the Filipino "war of genocide" and atrocities against Moros, reminding Obama that the Moro people have resisted and fought against the atrocities of Filipino, Japanese, American, and Spanish invaders, and reminding Obama of past war crimes also committed by American troops against Moro women and children like the Moro Crater massacre at Bud Dajo.[135]


 * "The Moro National Liberation Front accused the Philippines, Japan, America, and Spain of conspiring against the Moros and recounted their invasions, imperialism, and atrocities against the Moros and demanded that they end the current colonization against the Moro people, the MNLF recounted that the Spanish were greedy colonizers, that the Americans committed massacres of Moro children and women at Mount Bagsak and Bud Dajo, and that the Japanese "exhibited tyranny, cruelty and inhumanity at its lowest level", and "had to suffer their worst defeat and highest death mortality at the hands of the Bangsamoro freedom fighters", demanding an apology from Japan for crimes committed against the Moros.[136]"


 * "The Moro National Liberation Front questioned the humanity and morality of the Philippines, Japan, America, and Spain, noting that they have done nothing to end the colonialism and war inflicted upon the Moros and reminded them that they have resisted and fought against Japanese, American, and Spanish atrocities and war crimes while the Filipinos surrendered to the invaders, the MNLF brought up the massacre committed by American troops at Bud Dajo against Moro women and children and stated that compared to the Japanese casualty rate in the Visayas and Luzon, the amount of Japanese imperialists slaughtered by the Moro freedom fighters was greater by the thousands and that there was no capitulation like the "Fall of Bataan" to the Japanese by the Moros while the Luzon Filipinos submitted.[137] The MNLF said that the Japanese, American, and Spanish cruelty has been continued by Filipino rule.[138]"


 * In my defense, you are skewing what I wrote and presenting a strawman here User:Rajmaan. I never even talked about the link you provided specifically so that point is moot. Here is what I wrote:


 * " Pushing an agenda on Wikipedia is certainly unacceptable. Much of the article is clearly written from a partisan view and much of what is written lacks a neutral, balanced tone. Attempts have been made to abuse the page in order to fingerpoint at certain factions which is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. The article features questionable sources many of which link to blogs or pages prepared by Moro groups. Again partisan sources are not objectively verifiable and are certainly not neutral. At times, the sources in question may not even indicate the gravity of the claims being described which makes them dubious sources. This also leads me to believe that an agenda is definitely being pushed in order to twist the message of the citations given. Prior to edits by some concerned Wikipedia editors, this article also featured a number of gramatical errors, some of which are still present in the article, which makes the article lack a proper academic tone. There are even a few instances of copy-paste which is not acceptable. Furthermore many claims are made without any citations. Much of the article needs to be purged and reconstructed from scratch to keep up with WP:NPOV and WP:RS rules. Validity of the information presented in the article is also in question and sentences with unsourced or poorly sourced information will also need to be deleted. "


 * Furthermore, there are rules on WP:RS and WP:NPOV against the use of self published sources, including but not limited to self - published papers, blogs, or a speech made by someone as they are not always reliable, neutral or objective. --Arquenevis (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Much of what is written in the article is indeed partisan and attempts to promote an agenda. Moreover, the article has a very strong propaganda style of tone which is inappropriate for the discourse expected in Wikipedia. I have taken issue with a number of sources listed here and some of these fail to even verify points suggested in the article or are dubious. With all due respect, user:Rajmaan, I am sure that even you will admit that you are guilty of leaning towards a certain side here and you have been using the Talk page as a repository for partisan links. --Arquenevis (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So three paragraphs at the end of the article which are less than 10% of the article are the reason why you want to delete most of the article and also explain why you tagged entire sections reliably sourced content on false promises.Rajmaan (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's not be facetious here. Obviously these are just some examples of a much wider problem with the article as a whole. I made no 'promises' on anything. If you can recall, the revisions of the article in the first quarter of 2016 were riddled with grammatical errors and even worse, a number of statements and paragraphs lacked citations or failed to properly cite directly what was suggested in the article. These problems alone do not even include or touch on problems with the reliability of the sources or the overall POV problems with the article. I concede that some of the cleanup tags I edited could have been reduced to no more than 1 or 2 per sentence. However, these were definitely not without merit. Though the current edition has slightly improved, the article still retains many of these aforementioned problems. This is why I strongly recommend purging the article and reconstruct it free from bias towards any group involved, especially groups with a political agenda at stake here. Unfortunately this issue is not a first: similar deletions had to be committed on related Wikipedia pages for this very reason. --Arquenevis (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most of the sources provided are quite reliable, and most of the information is quite neutral. A real fix would be to remove any broken links, and to find other reliable sources to back up information originally provided from them. GeneralAdmiralAladeen  ( Têkilî min ) 01:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The link was missing an f at the end. I fixed it. Rajmaan (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per WP:TNT. At present this article is a total mess, and deleting it and rebuilding it would be the best option. Alternately, the article should be reduced to a stub, and be rebuilt. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First, as per WP:TNT and due to severe WP:NPOV violations I support purging the article and having it reconstructed. Secondly I recommend having experts look into this topic matter immediately. --Arquenevis (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-build it first. Baking Soda (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. tag appropriately, re-write with expert attention. Baking Soda (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Baking Soda (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Baking Soda (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. AfD is to determine whether a topic is notable, not how well or badly it is written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is notable (sources abound). If you want a rewrite as NPOV, rewrite. If you want to change the article title to an NPOV one, move the article. Deletion is not cleanup GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: AfD is not cleanup. Moro National Liberation Front is even worse, but I am currently rewriting it! Ceosad (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I am strongly in favor of deletion for the following reasons:


 * First: Contrary to popular belief expressed by some here, a lack of notability is not the only criterion for AfD on Wikipedia. In general there are 4 pillars that inform deletion policy on Wikipedia: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). While the page passes the notability policy, it definitely and severely violates WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. Even worse, the article as a whole reads as a propaganda piece. To some extent it may qualify as an attack page which is grounds for deletion: It has a strong partisan tone that favors a certain group and agenda that directly engages and disparages other groups by means of fingerpointing, demonizing, and tries to play the victim card.


 * As yet another sorry example shows, take a look at this:


 * The Philippine government encouraged Filipino Christian settlers in Mindanao to form militias called Ilaga (rat[71]) to fight the Moros. The Ilaga engaged in massacres and atrocities and were responsible for the Manili massacre of 65 Moro Muslim civilians in a mosque in June 1971, including women and children.[72] The Ilaga allegedly also engaged in cannibalism, cutting off the body parts of their victims to eat in rituals.[73] Due to these and other actions, the Ilaga settlers were given the sarcastic acronym of the "Ilonggo Land Grabbers' Association".[74][75]


 * This is clearly a propaganda piece meant to vilify and insult another group. None of the sources are reliable or even describe what the paragraph states in detail. They consist of a Youtube video, blogs, and a prepared speech that is partisan in nature - none of which pass WP:RS policies.


 * Per Wikipedia rules, attack pages must be deleted.


 * Second: I need to clarify that none of us who are in favor of deletion support deleting the article permanently. Every one of us here, both in favor of deletion or keeping the page, are interested in keeping the page free from partisan interests. However those in favor of deletion like myself see it necessary to start over per WP:TNT and WP:NORESCUE.


 * Third: This page and similar topics have been the subject of numerous "shotgun" edits by a number of suspicious individuals who may have strong personal or political stakes in the issue resulting in a lopsided article. Hence it is necessary to delete the page and start over in order to remove the page from all its prior associations so that the page may NEVER be reverted. Deleting the page and removing it from its former associations is crucial and the most pressing issue here.


 * Fourth: I would like to appeal to those who have chosen to "Keep" the page to reconsider the greater implications of your decision. Take into consideration that rebuilding the page is going to be a tremendously monumental task given the current state the page is in. Even worse, since this page attracts partisan interests, there is a strong possibility that any changes made to edit and clean the page will be lost as the page can be reverted easily by individuals who have a political stake in the article. We cannot allow this. WP:NORESCUE highly suggests that in such circumstances it is best to delete the page and start from scratch and remove it from its former associations.


 * To quote WP:NORESCUE:


 * "This sort of attempt at misleading the reader can often be identified at Articles for Deletion. Horrifyingly, though, some people don't care, and instead insist the article should be kept, even when the entire article is demonstrably full of such attempts to mislead, and thus cannot be trusted, in the idea that other people should, once again, fix the problems they don't want to do the work to fix. This is wrong. Neutral Point of View is a core policy, and if the article has no redeeming merits, then the mere theoretical idea that a (completely different) article could be written on the subject which would be acceptable under Wikipedia policy is not an argument to keep."


 * Consider that this page has been around for a long time and is in prime position to misinform people. It is ALWAYS worse to have an article on a notable subject that has a slant or is misleading than to not have on at all. (See WP:NORESCUE) To consider keeping the article is to violate Wikipedia's core policies. --Arquenevis (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If there is a sentence which contravenes Wikipedia policy, it can easily be removed by a neutral editor without having to delete the entire article. Its strange how a total of three sentences are justification for deleting the entire article.Rajmaan (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also there is such a thing as arbitration, page protection, and other measures that can be taken by neutral admins to halt those who they deem as breaking WP policy from editing articles. Your reasoning for deleting the article and its entire history is facetious. If such a topic attracts partisan interests then all the parties will keep coming back no matter how many times the article is deleted.Rajmaan (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I do not believe that a propaganda page is exactly the same thing as an attack page. I might be willing to do something to this article too since I managed to somewhat fix the Moro National Liberation Front. The references of this article seem fine, and it could be rewritten just by using them. How about just making this article a nice and sane stub instead of deleting it completely to preserve the references? A lot of these Moro-articles seem to have been tainted by Nur Misuari's fanboys despite the fact that no-one really even supports him. The Moro conflict article is nothing special in that regard. Ceosad (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I believe certain editors want to wipe out WP:RS sources found in the article and its history. There is no other reason for deletion. The entire argument of partisan editors reverting reeks of bunk and drivel since there is such a thing that administrators have called page protection, plus a neutral arbitration committee can sanction and topic ban people and three revert rule means that chronic reverters will eventually get permanently banned if they edit war.Rajmaan (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete in current form, Keep as a summary style article. Push the sections out to detail articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete only if actually needed as restart but otherwise Keep as this seems enough for its own article. Restore any contents if need be, SwisterTwister   talk  06:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason for TNT, seems salvageable. What's wrong with the infobox, for example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.