Talk:Manila hostage crisis#Sleetman's edit

{{Talk header}}

{{Philippine English}}

{{Article history

|action1=GAN

|action1date=20:03, 18 July 2011

|action1link=Talk:Manila hostage crisis/GA2

|action1result=not listed

|action1oldid=439976667

|currentstatus=FGAN

|topic=Law|itn1date=23 August 2010

|otd1date=2013-08-23|otd1oldid=569878754

|otd2date=2017-08-23|otd2oldid=796759083

|otd3date=2020-08-23|otd3oldid=974554693

|otd4date=2022-08-23|otd4oldid=1106042710

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|1=

{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography| importance = Low}}

{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Hong Kong|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines|importance=Mid}}

{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=Mid}}

}}

{{Talk:Manila hostage crisis/GA1}}

{{Talk:Manila hostage crisis/GA2}}

Rewritten introduction

Hi there. I have edited the introduction a bit, correcting some grammatical errors and changing the wording a bit to (hopefully) make it sound more encyclopedic. I have also re-ordered some of the sentences, so that the paragraphs follow a "Background-Events-Consequences" sequence. I hope I haven't spoiled any of the excellent work that has been done here so far. Elchori01 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks a lot! Deryck C. 16:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

{{polltop}} not moved. Based on the arguments below, it appears that the crisis title is used in reliable sources and that the incident title is rarer. Insufficient reason to move. --regentspark (comment) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Manila hostage crisisManila hostage-taking incidentRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt whether there is any source of using the title "Manila hostage crisis". Is the name a original research? I suppose it is more common to be named "Manila hostage-taking incident". --202.40.137.198 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Support I was also thinking this last night, and think this is a good name. just do it. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Manila hostage-taking incident" is no less an original research than "Manila hostage crisis". The use of "Manila hostage crisis" dates back to news reports issued in the immediate aftermath of the event ([http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22manila+hostage+crisis%22+-wikipedia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22manila+hostage+crisis%22&hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=tUR&channel=fs&sa=X&ei=qIlUTrDVMYfGmAWnmu2ZDg&ved=0CBYQpwUoCQ&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A8%2F23%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F23%2F2010&tbm=nws&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5e3eacb6af5a0521&biw=1280&bih=712 Google news custom search]). If anything, the official name of this incident should be "Rizal Park hostage-taking incident", as used by the Philippine government investigation reports. Deryck C. 05:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

:*Maybe, but I have had great reservations about using the word 'crisis' here like this. 'Incident' is infinitely better and in line with what we typically use. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

:**Both "Manila hostage incident" and "Manila hostage-taking incident" have some GNews hits, but far fewer than "Manila hostage crisis" both on a first-month search [http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22manila+hostage+incident%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A8%2F23%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F23%2F2010&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22manila+hostage+incident%22&pbx=1&oq=%22manila+hostage+incident%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=106442l106442l4l106699l1l1l0l0l0l0l178l178l0.1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=3d4a920b551b3a10&biw=1280&bih=712] [http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22manila+hostage+incident%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22manila+hostage-taking+incident%22&hl=en&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&sa=X&ei=bM9XTvfGCubYmAX2mYyQDA&ved=0CBAQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A8%2F23%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A9%2F23%2F2010&tbm=nws&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=3d4a920b551b3a10&biw=1280&bih=712] and "anytime" search [http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22manila+hostage+incident%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22manila+hostage+incident%22&hl=en&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbas=0&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=7s9XTrn0IuLbmAW-4aSLDA&ved=0CA8QpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=3d4a920b551b3a10&biw=1280&bih=712] [http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22manila+hostage+incident%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22manila+hostage-taking+incident%22&pbx=1&oq=%22manila+hostage-taking+incident%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=29676l30200l5l30386l7l4l5l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=3d4a920b551b3a10&biw=1280&bih=712] vs [http://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=%22manila+hostage+incident%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22manila+hostage+crisis%22&pbx=1&oq=%22manila+hostage+crisis%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=6274l7219l6l7354l7l5l7l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.&fp=3d4a920b551b3a10&biw=1280&bih=712]. This is one of the cases which I'd prefer to invoke WP:POVTITLE and favour popularity over neutrality. Deryck C. 16:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Question - What's the problem, exactly, with the word "crisis"? I haven't really thought of that word as less-than-neutral before. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It imparts the impression that something bad has happened, which is fine, except that WP:NPOV implies that you shouldn't even say it's bad. An older version of NPOV (now at User:Knulclunk) said That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Deryck C. 15:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the word "crisis" implies something bad. If I take hostages, then my goal is to cause a crisis. What is a crisis? Well, the first online dictionary says "1. A time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger. 2. A time when a difficult or important decision must be made." Is there someone on the planet who's going to argue that a hostage situation is not a dangerous one, in which difficult decisions must be made? What's the point in taking hostages if the decisions involved aren't difficult, and if you're not trying to introduce an element of danger?

    I still don't get what's wrong with the word. I would never say "Hitler was a bad man", especially not in an encyclopedia, but I wouldn't think twice about calling a hostage crisis a "hostage crisis". That's ordinary, neutral, descriptive language. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Doesn't calling World War II a "war" imply that something bad happened? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
  • That's true. (I don't support the page move anyway.) Deryck C. 11:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well, we do have an article on the Iran hostage crisis. Perhaps the contributor would like to rename that one as Iran hostage-taking incident? •••Life of Riley (TC) 20:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above comments. The word "crisis" seems perfectly neutral to me, and it is commonly used by media in reference to this event. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  • i support on several points. "crisis" sounds like a current or looming event. "incident" more clearly denotes an event that has already happened. my second point is that there was another "manila bus hostaging incident" in 2007 at the same location (quirino grandstand) involving school children and Armando Ducat Jr. as the perpetrator. this article should be differentiated from that one. Tikbalang (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not a response to your first point, but regarding distinguishing this event from one in 2007. Would that concern be addressed by calling it 2010 Manila hostage crisis or 2010 Manila hostage-taking incident? Or would that be unnecessary disambiguation because we haven't got an article about the earlier event? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • MOS:DABRL, although doesn't deal with article naming explicitly, suggests that such disambiguation is unnecessary. Deryck C. 11:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Question - Is there a way to search Wikipedia for articles with the word "crisis" in their titles? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Answer. Yes. Select this link: {{intitle|crisis}}. You will get more links than you want, though. •••Life of Riley (TC) 00:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Awesome. Thank you. Actually, that's not more than I want. I think it demonstrates that, even after you remove the less-relevant examples, "crisis" is a word we use frequently in titles, as opposed to being a word that we WP:AVOID. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hong Kong people never called this incident as "hostage crisis" (or the equivalent term "人質危機" in Chinese). Instead, they usually call it as "hostage-taking incident" ("挾持人質事件", [http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201011/05/P201011050297.htm an example from Hong Kong Government]) or simply "hostage incident" ("人質事件", [http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201008/24/P201008240172.htm an example from Hong Kong Government]). However, I respect how the incident is called from the other places over the world. If they commonly regard it as "hostage crisis", then it is fine. --Hargau (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since the existing title is that which the event is better known for than the suggested one, changing it would make it less easy for wiki users to find it or even spidered on Google, even with a redirect. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Google can cope as long as "Manila hostage crisis" still exists as a redirect to this article, although it does make things a bit uglier since [http://www.google.com/trends?q=Manila+hostage+crisis%2C+Manila+hostage-taking+incident%2C+Rizal+Park+hostage-taking+incident%2C+Quirino+Grandstand+hostage+crisis&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 the current statistics] do suggest people do tend to search for "Manila hostage crisis" over all other possible names for this article. And for that reason I oppose the move too. Deryck C. 17:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Question -- The Chinese have a penchant on calling significant events as "incidents" such as the June Fourth Incident, 228 Incident, etc. Is this the same thing here? In the Philippines, there is no clear-cut name for this event, but popular ones use the combinations of "Luneta" (old name for Rizal Park), Quirino Grandstand, or Manila, the word "bus", and either "hostage-taking" or "hostage tragedy". "Hostage crisis" is rarely used. If it counts, the Philippine government referred to this as "[http://www.gov.ph/2010/09/17/first-report-of-the-iirc-on-the-rizal-park-hostage-taking-incident/ the Rizal Park Hostage-taking Incident]." –HTD 19:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
  • This is because the Chinese phrase 危機 isn't equivalent to the English word crisis. 危機, literally danger-opportunity, usually refers to a looming disaster; a different phrase (usually 事件, which is largely equivalent to incident) is needed to describe the whole event. On the other hand, a crisis usually refers to the whole event, from looming danger to outbreak to aftermath. Deryck C. 03:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer "Manila hostage-taking incident" than "Manila hostage crisis" but the current title is OK for me. I'd say it can be changed if there's a strong consensus in changing it. If it counts, both governments call it a "hostage-taking incident". –HTD 12:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

{{pollbottom}}

Filipino

There seemed to be a small edit war. What is the preferred adjective form of Philippines? Is it "Philippine" or "Filipino"? Deryck C. 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The term we call ourselves is "Filipino" as either gender-neutral or male, and "Filipina" for female. --Arsenal Pro 1975 (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)