Talk:Angeles City - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edgarde (talk | contribs) at 01:30, 4 June 2007 (→Destroying Angeles ''again'': There's been enough "talk". Put up or shut up.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:30, 4 June 2007 by Edgarde (talk | contribs) (→Destroying Angeles ''again'': There's been enough "talk". Put up or shut up.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angeles City article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Template:Cleanup taskforce notice

Archives

2005-2006
26 December 2006 - 4 January 2007
28 December 2007 - 25 April 2007
25 April 2007 - 22 May 2007

Suggesting New Addition: Welfare Groups and NGO's

Welfare Groups and NGO`S Orbis the flying eye hospital, a charity that provides free medical treatment is active in Angeles helping children in Angeles in restoring and saving their eyesite. They have visited Angeles in their flying hospital and also, working with the Central Luzon Society of Ophthalmologists, a local chapter of the Philippines Academy of Ophthalmology, the ORBIS program provided training to approximately 100 eye care personnel during the Angeles City program. When the Orbis flying hospital is not in Angeles, it continues its training through hospital-based programs, fellowships, telemedicine via the Internet and the provision of educational materials. Preda has been actively involved in Angeles for numerous years. The intervention of Preda into the Mango business over the past years has helped.Preda has also been active in helping children in jail. Preda has been involved in helping law enforcement bring those involved in the prostitution of children to court. The Salvation Army set up office there in 2005 and have been active in helping. Another charity group, ReachOut Foundation International, with funding from USAID, PATH, and FHI launched a comprehensive AIDS/STD prevention program targeting the brothel-based female sex workers and their partners in this community. Other women’s organizations include Women’s Legal Bureau, Women’s Crisis Center, Women’s Health Care Foundation, Conspectus, Kalayaan); the Nagkakaisang Kababaihan ng Angeles City Multi-Purpose Cooperative (NKAC, or United Women of Angeles City Multi-Purpose Cooperative) in Angeles City. The Women’s Health Care Foundation, WEDPRO sponsors a clinic in Angeles City. The Philippine Children's Fund for America was created by the US and Philippine governments in 1991 to assist impoverished Filipino children of American ancestry by providing educational scholarships, employment and working visas to the United States. They have a Philippine office in Clark Field, Angeles City. Many Amerasian children are to be found in Angeles City. The Loving Care Street Kids Foundation provides offers free meals to the thousands of children left homeless on the streets on Angeles city. Many homeless street children are taken to the Bahay Bata Center, an institution taking care of orphans and abused children. GABRIELA, which is the National Alliance of Women's Organizations in the Philippines is actively involved in Angeles in massive awareness campaigns to prevent the trafficking of women and girls from the Philippines . Its strategies consist of seminars and dissemination of information to NGOs and Government Agencies that are working for the advancement of women and awareness campaigns at the community level. The Ing Makababaying Aksyon (IMA) Foundation, Women's Development and Resource Center has been active in helping the victims os the sex slavery trade in Angeles.

I believe this is a valuable addition to the article. It is very well cited with quality sources. It has a right to be in the article as it is within wikipedia guidlines. Other areas of the Angeles article include schools, barangays, businesses, etc. So it is a good addition that charities and welfare agencies are included.Susanbryce 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

you are joking, right?RodentofDeath 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if we're enumerating all the schools in town, it would also be reasonable to include welfare groups and NGO's, which are at least as significant.

The ones to include would be those operating specificly in Angeles City; not (for instance) the AC branch of The Salvation Army, which would be hardly more notable than the AC Walmart. / edgarde 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i have no problem with listing the salvation army and other fine organizations. its the stupid biased information just posted (which has already been corrected and deleted before) that we can do without. for instance, the flying eye hospital has been to angeles a total of one time. susan uses this as an excuse to insert the word "slum" into the article once again. the flying eye hospital is not active in angeles. she claims there is distant learning but the distant learning is available to EVERYONE and really has nothing to do with angeles in particular.

The repeated accusation that Susanbryce simply wants to insert the word "slum" seems like a specious presumption, and is counter to both assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks. Also it makes people wonder how bad the slum situation must be in AC if someone is so very defensive. / edgarde 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you weren't here at the time. there was a bit of an edit war when i proved that angeles is listed as a first class city. she kept insisting on calling it a slum city. not being defensive. no presumptions. just stating facts. i am sure its all there in the history.RodentofDeath 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

i will soon be organizing a list of gas stations in town, a complete list of every intersection in town and a list of all ATM locations since it appears we are now finding everything that exists in the town notable enough to be in this article. RodentofDeath 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider "Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point". / edgarde 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry, missed your comment about not including them all. RodentofDeath 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider the "Show preview" button. / edgarde 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

the Bahay Bata Center is a wonderful organization and i contribute to them on a regular basis. in fact i am going to one of their fundraisers this coming saturday. however, inserting comments after the organizations seem like another repeated attempt to make angeles look bad. the "many homeless street kids" implies there are a disproportionate amount of street kids in angeles and it may be best to not introduce NPOV concerns. a list of active and notable organizations with very brief descriptions may be best. also, calling them "charitable organizations" instead of welfare groups maybe more accurate. RodentofDeath 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you do an article on them? Seems like it would give you a nice break from slamming PREDA. / edgarde 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that brief descriptions are best. / edgarde 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

no urge to slam anyone. just stating the facts.RodentofDeath 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I removed the word slums from the article, "even though it is constantly mentioned in the references". Also, it should be stated that when the Orbis flying hospital is not in Angeles, it continues its training through hospital-based programs, fellowships, telemedicine via the Internet and the provision of educational materials in Angeles, so the org has a constant activity there.Susanbryce 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also added gariela to that list.Susanbryce 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And now things devolve to personal attacks. Yay.

"even though it is constantly mentioned in the references" only shows that your references are biased too. i dont see the need to have a description for every charity. the charities themselves should be able to stand on their own without need for further comment. i also dont feel the need to list every charity that has ever been through angeles. the ones that are based in angeles should be fine. RodentofDeath 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a telephone directory, so it is a good idea to give a description of the orgs and the work they do.Susanbryce 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

who said anything about a telephone directory? are you being condescending to me? i think its a horrible idea because it introduces NPOV concerns and as we can see by your past descriptions of what the charities do you try to insert your political slant on the descriptions. this IS an encyclopedia and if someone wants to look up a specific charity and what they do they can be directed to that charity's encyclopedia entry. there is no need for multiple descriptions of the same charity all over different wikipedia pages. RodentofDeath 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the general campaign has been to remove anything perceived as unflattering poses an NPOV problem. The attempt to list organizations dealing with significant problems in the town does not. / edgarde 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

it may be true that most of the stuff that is being removed is unflattering but that would be because most of the lies inserted in the article were unflattering. previously we had nobody inserting lies like "everyone in angeles is happy and it is the most friendly city in asia" so there is no need to remove it. what we did have was silly things like "angeles is a slum" and "56% of the entire population are prostitutes" therefore its the unflattering things getting removed. RodentofDeath 08:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So guess who's back? Oh well, it seems like Susan Bryce a.k.a. Edgarde is still persistent on her aim to put Angeles in bad light again. To Susan, I thought you're gonna stop with your demoralizing tactics against this city??? I thought you have ONE word, huh?

You're definitely not helping this discussion as it has been agreed upon that your suggestion to include your so-called "welfare groups" is insignificant as most of them are no longer existing (if ever they did exist). It's so apparent you keep a "grudge," thus you keep on pushing a personal agenda against Angeles. You have to move on, for Christ's sake!

Susan, please stop it. We don't wanna argue with you anymore and we find it totally useless now. You're being irrational and if you insist that all the schools and universities that have been mentioned here be deleted, then let just the moderators remove the entry at once so as just to stop you from bashing this city. Hope that pacifies you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.180.4 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy.

Also, I don't think anyone (other than the above anonymous editor) has suggested deleting the list of schools. / edgarde 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure edgarde and susan are not the same person. aside from the personal stuff, i think what they were saying was that if the list of schools justifies adding welfare groups then just delete the list of schools. i dont agree but think that both lists should be handled similarly. they should actually be based in angeles and should be notable enough to stand on their own merit without detailed explanations. for instance, i see no need to put the University of Phoenix in the list of schools and then explain they have a distance learning program.RodentofDeath 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Short explanations for NGO's

no, im not suggesting removing schools at all, the debate is on we include only philippine charities, business, etc or we also include foreign entities. I have no problem with foreign entities that are active in Angeles be it a business, charity or school. But watever is decided, it must apply to all. So we cant refuse a foreign charity and then say list a foreign business, we must be fair and balanced. We also need to keep this encyclopedic by providing a short explanation of what these ngo`s do, then back that up with citations. Its no point if people see for example, "blah blah charity" but have no idea what they do. Best to give them a short explanation, then if they need to explore it further they can click on a citation.Susanbryce 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

what makes you think that to be "encyclopedic" we NEED to give short explanations? first of all, if someone wants an explanation on one of the charities listed then all they need to do is click on name and they get it. this is the internet. things like that work wonderfully here. secondly, if explanations are given and later the information or goal of the charity changes, as was the case with preda originally being for drug addicts, then not only does it need to be changed in the original charities entry on wikipedia but then you need to search the entire wikipedia site for any discussion of that charity and update it in those locations also. giving the user the ability to click on the link to that charities page is more than sufficient for this article. Lastly, i dont have much confidence that the information entered into this page will be accurate and have a NPOV given your past insistence that the flying eye hospital has been to angeles hundreds of times when it was there only once.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Short explanations make sense. Lists of reader-unfamiliar organizations with zero information are not helpful, and contrary to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, so yes in this case it can be said we need to give them. Any organization needing more than a sentence or so might need its own article. If the list dominates the article, it should be summarized here and expanded somewhere else, but I don't expect that will really be a problem.

Organizations where no Angeles-relevant explanation can be included may be insufficiently notable in this article. / edgarde 09:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, is it only fair to give a short explanation about all the establishments, schools, universities, malls, hotels and resorts that Angeles has and what they offer???— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.180.4 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And may I add? How about giving an explanation as well about every barangay/district in Angeles so people would have an idea as to how the place looks like, the land area, and the people of the surrounding area. Sounds fair to you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.180.4 (talk • contribs) 13:09 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It would improve the article. Why is this phrased as if it were some kind of threat? Go ahead. Anything that overwhelms the article can be spun off per Misplaced Pages:Summary style.

If you need a place to start, it would be great to have well-sourced, encyclopedic information on all 33 barangays. This would be a good place to start them. / edgarde 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

i would caution that editors may have a conflict of interest in this area. Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest RodentofDeath 13:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

actually, i really like the hotel and resort idea. i think we should have a section on that with some explanations. it sure would help dispel the notion one editor has that this is a slum city and bring a more realistic view of this place. RodentofDeath 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Edgarde has the best idea, im going to do a complete seperate page on all charities, welfare orgs and ngo`s in Angeles now. So forget about adding it here. thanks.Susanbryce 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

if your claims of founding a charity and promoting it are correct then that would be a serious violation of Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest RodentofDeath 02:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Destroying Angeles again

Now I'm afraid Susan Bryce will do all her efforts to destroy Angeles again. To all moderators, please try to make an observation on what the motives of other editors are in this entry. We all know the fact that Susan has kept on attacking this city by calling it a "slum city," "the city with the highest incidence of AIDS" and even claiming that majority of people here are prostitutes without any basis, which of course is a lie and a very demeaning statement to the townfolks. Susan, if you have a personal agenda against Angeles, please don't do it here. My mom and my sisters were never prostitutes so it hurts the most when you kept on slandering the people here. I would rather help you in your effort in helping the city in other ways, but not in this way. There are much better venues to do it. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikabod08 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So, new contributor, you're saying Angeles will be destroyed by having information about problems in the city included in this article? Angeles had a volcanic eruption, yet Misplaced Pages is what destroys Angeles City?

Just checking here. Anything bad that goes on should not be written about because it destroys Angeles City. Is this what you are actually saying? / edgarde 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what I'm saying, Edgarde. It won't take too much logic to know if one person would state or claim a thing just to push his/her personal agenda against this city.

To say that Angeles was destroyed by Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 is a fact.' But to say that majority of women are whores and 50% of the kids in this city are homeless is a horrible, biased and baseless opinion. I have full trust that Misplaced Pages won't let that happen.

Anyone in his right mind will sure know how to differentiate what being objective is from being subjective. Ikabod08 19:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Ikabod08

Information you do not like does not destroy Angeles City, even in a "subjective" way. Melodramatic whining will not help your case.

No one is calling your mother a prostitute, or saying "everyone" in Angeles City has AIDS. These are Straw man arguments, and not helpful in discussing the content of this article.

What I'm hearing here is you don't want certain well-sourced information about Angeles City included in this article. To exclude such information is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy — Misplaced Pages is not censored.

Your repeated claim that editors posting information you don't like have the intention of causing harm to Angeles City is extremely unfounded, and furthermore constitutes a personal attack. This is contrary to Misplaced Pages's policy — Comment on content, not on the contributor. / edgarde 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm exactly saying, Edgarde. Well, if I may not sound too demanding, why not go back to all the edits of Susan to see it for yourself what I meant? And I need not go further in telling you what we, Angeles folks, want to prove to you.

And just to clarify things, I did NOT say that I don't want well-sourced information about this city. It just so happened that some citations here came from the organizations where Susan have been much involvement to. Thus, you may not help but smell a personal agenda against this city.

And again, never did I harass Susan. Anyone would surely be not be in favor to hear of the demeaning statements "majority of women in your city are whores and kids are homeless...yadda yadda yadda..." If you feel that way, then I do apologize for the probably not-so-good words I had thrown here. And to straighten out things, we feel we're entitled to comment on whatever content/intention some people may put here.

We're only trying to air our side so as to prevent any further disputes, and not to atack anyone. Ikabod08 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Ikabod08

If we want to prevent further disputes, we want to discuss current and future edits, not old ones. I've come to the conclusion that I'll never finish reading the hundreds and hundreds of kilobytes of bickering on AC-related Talk pages, and unless someone can point me to a particular edit, I'll either read the rest when I get around to, or never.

If you have issue with what you perceive is someone's agenda, you should consider the dispute resolution process. However, it is entirely inappropriate here. Discuss the edits, not the motivation; the article, not the personalities. Persistent personal attacks are not productive and may result in being blocked. I didn't make that rule up, but it's a good one. / edgarde 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

not surprisingly, edgarde, i disagree. the editor's agenda is well documented both within wikipedia and elsewhere. the editor has a history of deliberately inserting false and misleading information here to further this agenda. there is a blatantly obvious conflict of interest with this editor that you seem to refuse to acknowledge exists. this is not a personal attack on either you or the other editor but a criticism on what false and misleading information gets inserted into the article AND WHY. RodentofDeath 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I "refuse to acknowlege" this, I refuse to be interested in it. If this is as big a problem as you say it is, take it to the Administrators, or to dispute resolution. This incessant complaining, edit warring, specious argument and accusation does not help develop the article. edgarde 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. "Well-documented" conflicts of interest combined with aggressive POV-pushing can get a user sanctioned with extreme prejudice. If you sincerely believe this is an issue, you won't get it addressed on the article talk page. Take it to dispute resolution. This page is for discussing edits, not personalities. / edgarde 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your honesty in admitting your bias. i appreciate it. to the contrary, the arguments and accusations DO HELP the article because the arguments and accusations are what brings the truth into focus. if it were not for the arguments and accusations then this article would still have errors such as calling Angeles a slum city with 56% of the entire population being prostitutes. as you know, the first step in resolving a dispute is to discuss it here. RodentofDeath 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The first step has been completed. I have just archived another 75kb of accusations against the same editor. This is the 4th such archive of the same repetitive accusations for just this article.

Put up or shut up. If you sincerely believe this is an issue, take it to dispute resolution, or to Administration. / edgarde 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be a tough job to specify the edits I'm refering to as there have been innumerable instances that the city had been personally attacked. So I'd rather leave the job to you.

You need not worry about it, Edgarde. Just to be objective, we'll be vigilant and continously be discussing the edits here. Moreso, expect everyone to be as neutral as possible. We have as much as good faith in Misplaced Pages as you do. Thanks! Ikabod08 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Ikabod08