Misplaced Pages

Talk:Eduardo V. Manalo

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emico (talk | contribs) at 14:52, 12 June 2005 (→Libel). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:52, 12 June 2005 by Emico (talk | contribs) (→Libel)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page was voted on for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Eduardo V. Manalo. The final result was Keep. --Deathphoenix 03:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is biased

  • The insinuation that the INC negotiated a deal with Arroyo is a clear indication of the author(s) bias.

Source not cited

    • IP 192.55.49.97 seem to belong to Intel Corp

NetRange: 192.55.32.0 - 192.55.81.255 OrgName: Intel Corporation OrgID: NTLS Address: 2200 Mission College Blvd, P.O. Box 58119 City: Santa Clara StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95052-8119 Country: US

      • Emico, is there a reason why you are so concerned about obtaining the IP addresses of anyone who posts something not to your approval?

Unauthorized

  • The writer of this article is not authorized by the subject, and the intention for this article is suspicious. Be wary of misinformation. (this contribution by User:Emico - signature added by DJ Clayworth 00:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

Preliminary POV Edits

  • removed cult reference to INC
  • removed references to nepotism
  • AFAIK, he is not the AsCII president (that should be Efren Tercias)
  • I've never heard AsCII downplay its connection with INC (I should know, I'm an AsCII member)
  • created "Political Influence in the Philippines" (for lack of a better title) section and marked as section POV

The new section badly needs POV edits. The accusations that EVM held secret negotiations with Arroyo to avoid charges should go in the absence of proof. No proof likewise was given equating Defensor's "courtesy call" to INC's support for Arroyo in the elections. Anybody care to do these? Ealva 02:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I've already added two sources, from ABS-CBN News and the Philippine Inquirer about Defensor's phone call and the INC's endorsement of GMA's candidacy. I would like to hear everyone's opinions regarding those links, and if they suffice for that section.--Onlytofind 22:43, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Still, the "courtesy call" being associated with the decision to support her during the election is a POV. Politicians "visit" (swarm?) INC locales during elections, but do not always get the support. Ealva 03:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The Inquirer and PCIJ have been at odds with the INC, with the INC suing the former for libel, and the latter publishing an article about INC's "business interests" (which turned out to be a mistake ). I could hardly call those sources as "proofs". Ealva 03:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's common practice for the press to be at odds with influential organizations and people. Both PCIJ and the Inquirer have enough reputation as reputable news sources in order to be linked to and quoted. I would like to see a result as to the verdict of each case, and if any of the stories were retracted, which would show who's necessarily correct in each case and if they are truly biased or not. Also, wouldn't the INC have sued for libel already over the two stories linked to if they found it unfactual?--Onlytofind 07:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Because there isn't a dispute over a specific part of this article, only it's lack of sources, who feels the {{DisputeCheck}} template should be used instead? This template reads: "This article requires attention because it may contain inaccuracies. A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for accuracy. Currently there may not be a specific dispute, but the content may need discussion on the talk page. --LBMixPro

  • Done. The tag fits the article's status better. Ealva 05:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And the absolute authority for it's accuracy is the subject of the article. --Emico 14:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not necessarily true. Do you think if Richard Nixon had authority over the Watergate article that it would be NPOV?--Onlytofind 03:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Defamation

Onlytofind, unless you can provide sources for your 'rebellion' allegation, do not use wikipedia to defame another person. --Emico 14:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)