Talk:2013 Lahad Datu standoff/Archives/2013/March

This is an archive of past discussions about 2013 Lahad Datu standoff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Flag

At least two different Sulu flags have been posted to this article, but I am removing them. While I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that a flag is being flown by this group, I have not seen any documentation regarding what it looks like. The most recent flag says it belongs to Muedzul Lail Tan Kiram, who opposes Jamalul Kiram III and the group in Lahad Datu, so it is almost certainly the wrong one. If you have a solid reference, please post it here, but otherwise I intend to continue removing the unreferenced flags. --Brian Z (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Just now, a Philippines flag was posted to represent the Sultanate of Sulu in the infobox, and I also removed this. It seems that the group in Lahad Datu is using some flag or other, but it to represent the sultanate, not the Philippines. [1]Brian Z (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jamalul Kiram III's Sultanate of Sulu flag should be used because its his forces that are in control of Lahad Datu. He actively uses the flag, including on the coat of arms of his sultanate as seen here. [[2]]. Since that is the only evidence anyone has presented i'm restoring the flag of the Sultanate of Sulu (Jamalul Kiram III faction).XavierGreen (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of arrival

I will try to make an edit to the article later if I have time, but a quick note for now. The article currently cites sources that say the group arrived on 11 February. However pieces in The Star [3] and the Borneo Post [4] say 9 February. Brian Z (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There are conflicting sources regarding the date of the start of the standoff. The first edit made to this article lists the date as February 12. The accompanying source for that edit states...

“

The group, estimated at 300 with dozens believed to be armed, landed by boat near the Borneo town of Lahad Datu in Malaysia’s Sabah state from the neighboring Simunul Island in the Philippine province of Tawi-Tawi on Tuesday. (emphasis added)

”

— PH calls for peaceful solution to Borneo standoff (Philippine Daily Inquirer) February 17th, 2013

The Tuesday there refers to February 12. An earlier (February 16) Inquirer article, which I used to determine the date in the current version, says the group departed from Tawi-Tawi on February 11. It could be possible though that the group departed from Tawi-Tawi on February 11 but arrived in Lahad Datu on February 12.

An infobox to this article was added on February 24, with the date of the start of the standoff on the infobox written as February 9 but the date on the lead paragraph unchanged (still February 12). I'm inclined to believe this was a case of simple oversight on the part of the editor and that the subsequent news articles appearing on The Star and The Borneo Post mirrored the version of this article when the date of the standoff was still listed as February 9. In any case, since the February 16 Inquirer article is the earlier source, I used [it] primarily to show the historical development of the subject, and thus chose February 11. Xeltran (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow... it is pretty pathetic that these newspapers would publish information from Wikipedia without any further fact-checking, but I think you are right. I can't find any news older than 13 February. A Bernama piece quotes the police as saying they arrived on the 12th. And one of these articles has the sultan saying they left on the 11th. So the idea that they left from the Philippines on the 11th and arrived on the 12th seems to be supported, but I will leave the article as it stands for now. Brian Z (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Initiation of the Standoff"

I just watched an interview last night by GMA7 news anchor Jessica Soho of the Sultan (should we style him "HRH"?), and he insisted that this action (the standoff) was not initiated by the signing of the peace framework agreement between the Philippine government and the MILF. I can't find a clip or a transcript of the interview yet, but I saw it last night, February 26, 2013. 202.138.168.58 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Jonathan E

The GMA news website seems to be not working right now. Was this definitely Sultan Jamalul Kiram III or might it have been one of the other pretenders? --Brian Z (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. It was definitely Sultan Jamalul Kiram III. I'll quickly post the link here as soon as it comes on on GMA 7's website. Cheers!202.138.168.58 (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Jonathan E

Brian, I don't think they'll ever put up the part of his interview I was referring to. It's already been days, and it still isn't there. However, they do have another excerpt from that same interview. 202.138.168.58 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Jonathan E

Some contributors has used unproven allegations of internal Malaysian politics being the initiator of this incident. No proof of any Malaysian political motives can be ascertain at the moment thus a neutral ground of citing allegations only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.92.87.14 (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Standoff over?

If it is, what do we call the operations after the gunfight? Mop-up operations? –H T D 18:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is. A new article says Kiram mentioned he and his followers will not surrender, so there's still some form of resistance. He did say his remaining men were still there in Lahad Datu. Meanwhile the Malaysian authorities are preparing for an all-out action against the group, with the navy "patrolling the sea to prevent them from escaping" so I don't think the standoff is finished...yet. Perhaps we can add a "Subsequent Events" section after the March 1 incident or something similar in the article. Xeltran (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If they're running away, that means they're no longer "standing" hence the standoff ended, right? A standoff implies occupation of a stationary object for a long period of time. –H T D 19:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kiram says his men are still there being surrounded by Malaysian authorities. His spokesman even said "the standoff was not over and that Agbimuddin’s group was still there and fearing more attacks by the Malaysian forces." (source) I am thinking of a situation wherein their "stationary positions" were disturbed due to the March 1 incident, but after giving respects to their dead, they re-consolidated their forces and their standoff continued where it left off, at least that's what this appears to say. Xeltran (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Standoff" means an " impasse or stalemate". The Sultanate's men are in no position to claim such situation is ongoing, whether they're occupying a stationary area of the forest or something else, unlike what happened before March 1.

Neverthless, the infobox should state clearly that the standoff as what happened prior to the gunfight is over and they're now being hunted down, which was apparently reverted to the not-helpful-at-all-to-the-reader "ongoing". Ongoing what? Standoff? Pursuit operations? Celebrations? Liberations? What? –H T D 05:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they are still in control of much of the town given the nature of the skirmish which was fought today. The best terminology to describe it now would be an ongoing conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with conflict. adkranz (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sidenote regarding sultans

I've noticed a bit of a problem regarding the coverage of the Sulu pretenders. There are quite a few of them, and each article lists its subject as the Sultan of Selu, conveniently listing when he was crowed (but not by whom, or with whose acquiescence). This is highly problematic for a number of reasons, all of which are quite obvious. What is to be done about this? Also, I would suggest some sort of effort to clean up the articles about the Sultanate to clarify their history and the status quo that has enabled this debacle. dci | TALK 01:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Jamul Kiram III is exercising his sovereignty as Sultan of Sulu over parts of sabah however minor, so unlike the others he would be labeled as a claimant rather than a pretender like the others should as he is the only one that actually has any territory at all under his control.XavierGreen (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure; however, what's more problematic is the number of pretenders whose articles label them as the definitive Sultan. dci | TALK 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article renaming

Would it be possible that the article be renamed 2013 Sabah standoff since the "clash" reached Semporna? 1 2 adkranz (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to suggest this; see the #Standoff over? section above. I'd suggest 2013 Lahad Datu crisis or Lahad Datu crisis (as per WP:PRECISION). –H T D 08:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this is not a standoff anymore, but a crisis/clash/siege (or any other word that sees fit). I agree with the renaming of the article, although I would prefer that this is a Sabah-wide issue, not just at Lahad Datu, hence 2013 Sabah (insert appropriate word here). adkranz (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What have the media called this... "event" now? That should be our basis. If they still call it a "stand off" or still use the more specific Lahad Datu locator instead of the more general Sabah we can't do anything about it. –H T D 10:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

RS not withstanding, I'm partial to "crisis" as its meaning is quite broad, unlike standoff or siege. Another option would be "incident". –H T D 11:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, "standoff" should be changed to "incident" The media began preferring to call this event an "incident". "Lahad Datu" should also replace by "Sabah" as the incident has spread to Semporna.121.97.142.10 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Incident" is a good, somewhat vague but oft-used term for such international dramas as this. dci | TALK 16:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Conflict" will be good enough to support it. Similar example is the Conflict in Afghanistan. And besides, were using the Civil Conflict infobox anyways, teeheehee.. adkranz (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it supposedly looks like a full blown conflict now, so "incident" won't be appropriate. I'm still partial to "crisis" (like the Suez Crisis) but I dunno if any WP:RS calls it as such. After all, we'd only follow sources and not make up our own name. –H T D 05:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Though ABS-CBN News and Rappler use "Sabah conflict" as of this writing (but not all of their reports) 1 2 3, for now we might stick to 2013 Lahad Datu Standoff as per WP:UCN; and we'll wait for events that follow. adkranz (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd put heavier weight on Malaysian sources as its their turf, and they should have a more in depth coverage. That said, New Straits Times still uses "Lahad Datu Stand-Off". –H T D 06:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we must first wait for some developments before we conclude that the conflict had indeed spread from Lahad Datu. Arius1998 (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, Channel News Asia is now calling this as the Sabah Crisis. –H T D 12:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose 2013 Sabah crisis. Xeltran (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nix the year as per WP:PRECISION. Unless there was a previous "Sabah crisis" in history. –H T D 14:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as it's changed to "Sabah", I'll support anything. The Maylasian govt is now bombing Kampung Taduo, which is not in Lahad Datu. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How about 2013 Sabah conflict? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If this conflict does spill over to the next year (which is a long 9 months ahead), then that would be, I think, the more appropriate time to remove the date from the article name. We need to make sure that the title is easily recognizable for now. 2013 Sabah conflict looks good as well. Xeltran (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Do news sources do call this as the "2013 <place in Sabah> <whatever they do call it>" (e.g. "2013 Lahad Datu standoff") or is it just "<place in Sabah> <whatever they do call it>" (e.g. "Sabah conflict")? In all news reports I've seen, it's always "<place in Sabah> <whatever they do call it>". My earlier example on the Suez Crisis (where real fighting took just more than a week long): does anyone actually remember what year it occurred? In 2015, would people still know what year this happened? Does anyone still remember what year did the Oakwood mutiny (don't look) happened? –H T D 15:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My main point here is recognizability and disambiguation. I doubt that everyone will know that Sabah conflict immediately refers to the ongoing conflict there. Besides, how troublesome would it be to change the article title from 2013 Sabah conflict (or whatever) to (No date) Sabah conflict when it's all over by next year or the years to come? Sabah conflict is not as historical as the Suez Crisis or the Oakwood Mutiny...yet, where people can easily infer what those incidents are right away by just reading the title. Because of it's ongoing nature, the date has to be specified. Newspapers don't have to write 2013 ---- in their article titles, of course, because a person reading it would naturally expect to see the day's news, not last year's. Xeltran (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the school that when it's ongoing, it means now, and the year can be nixed, since, it's... well, "now". If it's understood to be from people reading the article now that it is ongoing right now (massive current events banner which might be removed by a certain someone shortly...), what's the use of having "2013" as a de facto disambiguator? We're not writing for people of the future, we are writing for people of the present; the people of the future will find someone else writing for them: themselves. Currently, news sources variously call this as "<place in Sabah> <whatever they do call it>", and we should abide by them. Even in 2003, no one called the "Oakwood mutiny" as the "2003 Oakwood mutiny", probably save for "2003 Philippine(s) coup" from external news sources. If by 2015, people call this as the "2013 <place in Sabah> <whatever they do call it>" then move it then, not now.

Of course there is different to regularly recurring events such as elections and sport tournaments, which always have the year such as "2012 Olympics". –H T D 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: If there's a classic reason to nix the year in recent events articles, see "Kawit shooting". Correct title, not "2013 Kawit shooting", which might make people confused ("There's another 2012 Kawit shooting"?). However, other articles in Category:Riots and civil disorder in Malaysia don't give us much guidance and would even support on leaving out the year. –H T D 16:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's the 2013 Shahbag protests. And, on the contrary, there's the 1986 Sabah riots as another conflict article in the category so if you place it side by side with Sabah conflict, there is the need to disambiguate the two. Xeltran (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd presume our readers are not stupid enough to distinguish between protests, riots and a full-blown military crisis. And most military engagements don't mention the year, but the order, then place and how it's described? See Battles of the Isonzo and the many Battles of Manila. for example. It's quite hard to see anyone calling this the "2013 <place> <whatever>" when no one's calling it as the "2013 <place> <whatever>". –H T D 04:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of Unconfirmed Statements as Facts

This is to note that some of the statements in the article are based from newspaper articles that cite statements, confirmed and unconfirmed, that express opinion on the topic not as facts. This could be very misleading to the public upon initial reading.

Another thing, some of the footnotes do not point to the correct information such as "About three hours into the operation, the policemen were shot while heading towards a house in the village and opened fire in self defence. It is learnt that the superintendent who was the first to be hit by a hail of gunshots fired by hiding gunman died moments later.[26]"

In [26] ^ a b Yoong, Sean (3 March 2013). "5 Police, 2 Assailants Killed Amid Malaysian Siege". ABC News. Retrieved 3 March 2013. no information were derived suggesting the authenticity of the above statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.79.1 (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read the reference, but remember that WP:Verifiability, not truth; if the passage in question wasn't found there, you can remove it. With that said, I'd put heavier weight on local media (Philippines and Malaysia) as Western media (or media elsewhere) usually cut back on the details and oversimplify things. Malaysian and Philippine English news sources are the most extensive in SEA (aside from SG) so it won't be much of a problem. –H T D 06:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Map

The shaded map used in this article is getting to be inappropriate when there are multiple locations cited. Why not use locator maps? We have two options: Malaysia's locator map and Philippines' locator map.

Lahad Datu

Simunul

Semporna

Kota Kinabalu

Manila

class=notpageimage|

Key places in the incident

Lahad Datu

Simunul

Semporna

Kota Kinabalu

Manila

class=notpageimage|

Key places in the incident

–H T D 18:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the Philippines one, as this is newsworthy enough that atypical readers (for this article) will be visiting the page and may need to get their bearings. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the current map needs to go. dci | TALK 02:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Malaysia map (2nd option); but we won't need a terrain map. Apparently, there is no location map created yet for Sabah nor East Malaysia at the very least like this:

class=notpageimage|

Indonesian Borneo(Kalimantan)

Well, we can request one to WP:GL/M. This would benefit not only this article but other articles pertaining East Malaysia too (as some labels are unreadable if we use the terrain map) adkranz (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently there is a "map" in the article which is only a bunch of names - and nothing else. Is this a problem with the file or my computer? Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it shows the relative distances -- it is equivalent to the map in this talk page -- but there's no terrain or actual map. Maybe the layer of the map got lost somewhere. I'd still say these locator maps are superior as you won't need to edit the actual file per se. –H T D 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If desirable, I can add more locations to the district map that was used before in the infobox. --Cccefalon (talk • contribs) 06:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pretenders"

I have noticed that the word "pretender" is used frequently in this article. Since there is no clear consensus that is visible to me as to who, exactly, the real sultan (if there is one) is, I have tagged this article as being non-neutral. Discussion/clarification would be appreciated. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Jamul Kiram III is the only one who actually administers any territory defacto or exerts any temporal authority through the office, so he would be a claimant rather than a pretender.XavierGreen (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Pretender" is now only used twice in the article. One is a direct quote (can't do anything about that), and the other is cited by ref #10 that doesn't have the word "pretender" in it. The only problem now is the one cited by ref #10: it has to be reworded. –H T D 16:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the article with a reference already used here and replaced the previous Manila Times piece as reference. IMO, it was quite leaning on being MOS:OPED. Xeltran (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad a consensus seems to be emerging on that important issue. But what about all the dead people? Should we refer to them as "pretenders", "claimants" or "murder victims"? Twilde (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

They should be described in neutral terms, from one viewpoint in international law the Sultanate has a legitimate claim to Sabah. The best neutral means to describe the Suluists would be as militants or combatants.XavierGreen (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Death toll

Can someone come up with a death toll and put it on the prose? –H T D 04:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Casualties: Review needed!

There is still a gap of the death toll table in the text part of the article (41 deaths) and in the infobox (60 deaths). This needs an review. --Cccefalon (talk • contribs) 13:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been updated. The 32 deaths were new. I've also nixed the old references from the infobox as they gave old numbers and you'd have to add them one by one, I retained the latest references as they gave the most current death toll of 52 dead for the sultanate people and 8 for the Malaysians. –H T D 16:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox type

Why aren't we using a military infobox? This is clearly now a full-blown armed conflict. The Malaysian military is bombing them with jets and launching ground assaults.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed it, but apart from a change in color scheme, the change in the infobox doesn't appear to be of much change at all... –H T D 15:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, it's been reverted. –H T D 04:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

We are now using {{Infobox military conflict}} since this is not a civil conflict. TessaWajah (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect wording in the National Territorial Dispute section

In the National Territorial dispute section of the article it mentions that: " The Philippines retains a dormant territorial claim to eastern Sabah to eastern Sabah"

This misleads readers into thinking that the Philippino state government is officially claiming eastern Sabah to be part of the philippines. This is untrue because the Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario subsequently "urged the Filipinos to “return to their homes and families.” and "clarified that the Filipino group's actions were not sanctioned by the Philippine government."

I suggest that the description be reworded to something along the lines of "The islamic Tausug state known as the Sultanate of Sulu (situated in the Sulu archipelago of the present day Philippines) retains a dormant territorial claim to eastern Sabah to eastern Sabah" --DaveZ122 (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is the Philippines that retains the territorial claim. The source used is very clear: Philippines retains a dormant claim to Malaysia's Sabah State in northern Borneo based on the Sultanate of Sulu's granting the Philippines Government power of attorney to pursue a sovereignty claim on his behalf. Other details can be found at the article for the North Borneo dispute. The statement of Del Rosario is not conclusive as well, as "return to [your] homes and families" may mean "return to your homes, wherever that is". Xeltran (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sultanate of Sulu ceded Sabah to the Philippines in 1962, with a special rider that if the Philippines takes no action to enforce its claim or abandons the claim that Sabah would revert back to the Sultanate of Sulu. [[5]] Thus the Sultan does have the right to claim Sulu as its soveriegn, but the statements he has put out indicate that he is attempting to do so on behalf of the Philippines instead.XavierGreen (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Travel advisories section

Xeltran has reverted my changes to re-introduce the section on travel advisories to the article. This section is unnecessary and not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a travel guide and secondly, we are not a portal for indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that several governments have issued advisories against travel to eastern Sabah can be included in the form of prose in a sentence or two. There are no precedents where pages on military skirmishes or conflicts include such details. This information may be more useful on Wikivoyage's article on Sabah. TessaWajah (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be considered that their "travel advisories" are their reactions to the current conflict in Sabah? I don't think it's indiscriminate information at all, and definitely not a section that is akin to a typical travel guide where you can find telephone numbers or addresses. I guess the word "Travel" in the sub-section title might be the oft-putting term though. Although since the infobox was just recently changed to a military type from a civil conflict one, I agree that that section needs some tweaking. Xeltran (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Advisories such as the ones that have been highlighted on this article page are issued by governments regularly on the basis of their assessment of threat levels. There is nothing contained in the section that is contextually relevant for use on a Wikipedia article. As suggested earlier, an assertion that a few governments have issued travel advisories for their citizens against travelling to certain parts of eastern Sabah can be inserted in the form of prose (see also: WP:UNDUE). There are no other articles on either civil conflicts (which this is not) and/or military conflicts that have a separate section that details travel advisories issued by governments around the world, and that also while citing primary sources in bulk. If you still continue to believe that this section is relevant, then we can wait for more users to chime in. TessaWajah (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This is still an active discussion. Inviting other users to participate. TessaWajah (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see inclusion as a strict and clear violation of any of the policies cited above, but it's all on the borderline. I also don't see any precedent for this on other civil/military conflict pages. If Xeltran or others feel that it is still worth including some of this information, boiling it down to a sentence or two would not be a bad idea. Brian Z (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Marcos et al.

Articles doesnt mention [http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/asia/remembering-jabidah-massacre this historyLihaas (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The blanket section on the North Borneo dispute after the article's lead already gives a wider perspective about the historical cause of the standoff. Xeltran (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

2013 Lahad Datu standoff → 2013 Sabah conflict – Multiple sources [6] [7] [8] [9] indicate that the incident is not anymore isolated as a standoff in the area of Lahad Datu but has spread to other parts of Sabah as well. The year 2013 is proposed to be retained to precisely indicate the scope of the article and to provide immediate recognition of the topic for other readers. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Xeltran (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Support move to Sabah conflict or Sabah crisis as per WP:PRECISION. No WP:RS calls this as "2013 Sabah conflict". –H T D 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, I think renaming as Sabah conflict is a bit exaggerated, the conflict is now mainly confined in Lahad Datu though, even shops in Semporna (which saw earlier attacks) are being reopened.--Egard89 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

They've been drawn into the conflict one way or another, though. I was thinking of "Eastern Sabah conflict but that's like going against WP:PRECISION too... and no one calls "Eastern Sabah <whatever>". NST still sticks by "Lahad Datu standoff", though. –H T D 16:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most news media on Twitter either exclusively use #LahadDatu or #LahadDadu #Sabah, and increasingly, the actions of the Sulu Sultanate people are called "incursions" (actually more than "terrorist") so that should be given into consideration. I would no longer object to a retention of "Lahad Datu" on the article title. –H T D 04:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Support - News sources are referring to this as this as a conflict in Sabha, not just Lhad Datu --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Lahad Datu standoff → 2013 Eastern Sabah Crisis It is no longer isolated in Lahad Datu but it has not spread to the whole Sabah. Sabah Crisis or Sabah Conflict would be exaggerated.--Lahad datu (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on the "Eastern" point. How about 2013 Eastern Sabah conflict? I find "crisis" to be a little vague in comparison "conflict". --Brian Z (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Support - The incident is no longer restricted to Lahad Datu. It has spread to Tanduo and other villages along the eastern coast of Sabah.

Arctic Kangaroo 09:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – the page can only be renamed once we have reliable secondary sources calling it 'Sabah conflict'. At this point of time, the largest number of sources still refer to this as the Lahad Datu standoff, so the status quo should be maintained. TessaWajah (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - The conflict, if we believe Malaysian reports, is now isolated in the Lahad Datu and Semporna towns. If we want to rename the article, maybe we could say 2013 North Sabah standoff/crisis or 2013 Northeast Sabah standoff/crisis. Though I don't think that crisis would fit the bill as well as standoff. Arius1998 (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Belligerents Clarification

I was confused a bit by the use of the "Sultanate of Sulu"'s flag in the infobox - am I correct in assuming that they do not identify with the Philippine government or as part of the Philippines? The article itself seems to have this tone - that this is a separate political entity acting on its own - even though its own article seems to imply that the "sultanate" has been defunct since 1917? Shrumster (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

How would you propose that this be changed? TessaWajah (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sultanate exists not as a state, but as a political/militant entity. This entity claims to be a continuation and successor of the state that previously had existed. The Sultanate as a sovieriegn entity from one point of view ceased to exist in 1963 when it conditionally ceded its residual soveriegnty over Sabah to the Philippines, but a rider in the treaty allows the sultanate to resume is sovereign claims if the Philipines refuses to enforce its claim over sabah or abandons it. There are several factions that each claim to be the successor to the Sultanate of Sulu, but the faction involved in the fighting is headed by Jamul Kiram III. That factions flag is included in the infobox. As the name of the belligerent opposing Malaysia is called the Sultanate of Sulu, that is the name which should be included in the infobox along with some identifying statement that it is the Kiram faction that is doing the fighting.XavierGreen (talk)

Please provide secondary sources to back up what you have said above. A erstwhile entity that ceased to exist cannot be recognized as a sovereign without any legal basis. TessaWajah (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if the organization fighting in Sabah is soveriegn or not, it is called the Sultanate of Sulu. They are from the Sultanate of Sulu. Now you can argue exactly what that is (a militant group, a non-state soveriegn, ect) but regardless of what it is its still called the Sultanate of Sulu. A fact that is well sourced in various sources used in the article.XavierGreen (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

To explicitly answer Shrumster's initial question, yes, the Sultanate of Sulu is absolutely "a separate political entity acting on its own". It is essentially a "separatist" movement that happens to be operating across an international border, although that term is not widely used to describe it and should therefore not be used here. Feel free to make any edits that could potentially make this more clear. --Brian Z (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Its aims are not seperatist, but rather irredentist. It claims to be acting for the benefit of the Philippine government, and currently does not claim independence though it has reserved the right to do so via treaty with the Phillipines.XavierGreen (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

They claim to be acting for the benefit of the Philippine government? If that's right it may be worth addressing in the article? Brian Z (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Sultanate being an irredentist entity rather than separatist would be a more accurate description for it as far as what the sources used in the article state. However, the Sultanate's permission for the Philippines to pursue the territorial claim on its behalf was granted through a special power of attorney (SPA) in 1961 when it still had state recognition, not through a treaty (source). Kiram's side states that this SPA was revoked in 1989 (source) but whether this had any effect is questionable because 1) the Philippine government (and any other state for that matter) has not recognized the sovereignty of the Sultanate since 1986; and 2) who the sole successor to the sultanate throne is remains in limbo thus also raising the question whether or not Kiram III had legal authority to revoke the SPA back then. The latter source says, "[the sultanate] is just waiting for Malacanang’s invitation to be part of the process to reclaim Sabah". This would imply a willingness to cooperate on the part of Kiram III. In any case, the ball is now in the hands of the Philippine government being the successor state to the sultanate and as a sovereign entity, and it has said it will not drop the territorial claim (source). Xeltran (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)