Talk:Eli Soriano

Initial comments

I added the fact of nuissance candidate declaration by comelec. I also added the rape case.

--Florentino floro 12:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

add rape case.

--Florentino floro 12:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

i deleted those articles coz i find it not necessary to be posted here @wiki...

One category of Legal and Court Cases

The nuissance candidate issue and rape issue being charged of Eliseo Soriano was trimmed down into one category: Legal and Court Cases. This aspect still needs to be cleaned to reach the standards of an encyclopedia. --Julianmakabayan 00:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they need to be to encyclopedic standard. They are now, because I have fixed them. Please do not make edits which remove pertinent information and/or add contentious information, with the edit summary "Formatting and clean edit to reflect encyclopedic style of Wikipedia.)". I removed your addition alleging Veridiano has been accused of sexual molestation and assault of teenagers. We would need to be able to cite police/court sources to justify such an allegation, and certainly not the say so of a lawyer representing the person accused of raping Veridiano. I have also altered the flow of the article. The section dealing with awards/recognitions needs to be lower where I have put it. Also, it contains many entries which hardly seem to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, most entries are unsourced. Would you like to trim that list? Moriori 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuisance candidate

I removed the most recent addition which partly stated "Comelec said Soriano does not have the capability to launch a nationwide campaign". According to the official Comelec report, Soriano and others were declared nuisance/disqualified "for the reasons that they cannot wage a national campaign, and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered political party with a national constituency". The addition to the article gave (unsourced) comment on a selective part of the reason/s for disqualification. Not very encyclopedic. Moriori 02:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The source of the comment was there all along, you just did not read through it. Read it again, please: OMNIBUS RESOLUTION No. 6604 Click and read the sentence below disqualified candidate number 39.

Here's the whole sentence:

Prescinding therefrom, the Commission, after carefully evaluating the pleadings including documentary evidence thereof, submitted in connection with the disqualification of the mentioned candidates, RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES to DENY the motios for reconsideration and to AFFIRM COMELEC Resolution No. 6558 disqualifying the following candidates:

--- 'list of disqualified candidates here' --

for the reasons that they cannot wage a national campaign, and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered political party with a national constituency.

signed: --Journeyist 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial

Please do not remove the word controversial. My dictionary defines controversial as giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement -- contentious, disputed, at issue, disputable, debatable, arguable, vexed, tendentious. The article clearly states he criticises various other religious groups for their doctrines and practices, that he faces charges for rape, that he was declared a nuisance senatorial candidate and was disqualified from an election. That makes him controversial, by any definition. Incidentally, isn't it "coincidental" that after Wikipedia used his own website as a source for "controversial", the word was removed from his website. Moriori 21:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the very first paragraph of its OMNIBUS RESOLUTION No. 6604, Comelec stated the following -- "Once again, the noble right of suffrage is used as cloak to serve the caprices of a few who want to mock our democratic processes as the May 10, 2004 Naitonal and Local Elections approacehs. This Commission will never be an instrument to such inclinations since it is duty-bound to uphold the time-honored principle of vox populi, vox dei. " Any capricious person who wants to mock the democratic process of the country is controversial. Moriori 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the same Comelec who declared Bro. Soriano to be a "nuisance" candidate and a "capricious" person is itself (by Moriori's standards) even more controversial because it is universally hated in the Philippines for being the institution that made possible the Hello Garci Election Scandal. Moriori, you clearly must conduct a deeper study of Philippine society and Philippine government before drawing conclusions from superficial facts you happen to find on establishment websites. Our Comelec is not the same respectable electoral institution you may have in your country. Your political leaders do not count on political support from shrewd religious leaders such as those in our country whom Bro. Soriano stand against. Moriori, you do not know the political cost of speaking the biblical truth in the Philippines. We are a marginalized religious minority with powerful enemies in the Philippine media, government and established religion. I hope you will be little more objective. Journeyist 04:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

i deleted the first paragraph, because those statements are baseless and inaccurate. Mr. Soriano's manner of preaching is not 'often' a target of criticism. In fact, he has received numerous citations and recognitions coming from different award giving bodies --- all of which came from groups with different religious denominations (see the awards and recognitions section). He is also not 'fond' of attacking his 'religious opponent'. One who religiously tunes in to his broadcasts on TV and radio, will 'realize' that Mr. Soriano is just prompted to answer all those who ask questions to him regarding salvation, the bible, God, etc. For one who is teaching the truth to be reliable and accurate must always also point out the false. This is not 'attacking' in its real essence. Mickey0000 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bro. Eli, A phenomena

There is no doubt, and I confirm that Bro. Eli has no duplicate in the entire world, even in Ateneo EAPI. I studied pre-divinity at the Ateneo, 1972, where I met the best of Catholic Philippinea most powerful priests and foreign Ph.D.s, like my classmate Fr. Archie Intengan, S.J. But I never found any foreign doctors who could match Eli's phenomena.

Bro. Eli is a phenomena as far as BIBLE memorization or citing is concerned, he is a dictionary.

However, I find his biting and negativism vs other sects diminishing his positive gains.

Maybe it is due to his emotional setting.

--Florentino floro 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My Recent Reverts

I am not trying to start an edit war but I have been reverting some edits which are POV and which are also rather poor English. I don't think the author is editing in bad faith but it is clear that different people have different views and it is hard to be impartial. Soriano is a controvercial figure and we should not take sides in his arguments. Perhaps the wording is a bit harsh in places but we can't have a whitewash either. We need to avoid anecodotal claims and counter-claims. If there is no supporting references then it is better to remove them completely. If there are references for both views then both can be included.

I would also like to explain why "Rape case" is the correct title for the section and "Alleged rape case" is wrong. The rape is an allegation because we don't know if that really happened but the case itself is real not alleged. To say "alleged rape case" is to say that it is disputed whether there is/was a court case. I know this is a bit subtle but the title as it is does not imply his guilt and should stay as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. An edit war it seems to be. Please can somebody else jump in and try to break the deadlock here? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article, to me, can be in perfect neutrality. See picture. Also, a very pessimistic user, does not believe in the video of Gawad Amerika awarding Soriano and giving him a title of the most sensible preacher in our time. I support what Wikiuserphil wants, that Soriano's awards (2) must be mentioned in this article. Dar book (Complains?) 10:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Puppetmaster, the so-called Gawad America is a non-notable "award" created by Soriano's organization for the purpose of giving him an award. Be realistic, what authentic and honorable award giving body would award this fugitive Soriano? The name "Most Sensible Preacher" award is a clear give away. Have you seen any authentic and honorable award giving body giving this kind of award? An award must be longstanding and prestigious to merit mention in an encyclopedic article. Now, with regards to the Philippine Web Awards, was it Soriano who made their website? Soriano Usurped the award meant for whoever is the webmaster of their website. How can you put a best website award in an article about Soriano? Is he the website? Did he create the website? We must also look at the validity of this Philippine Web Awards. I browsed through their website and it doesn't give the name of the people running the award, it is a suspiciously anonymous award giving body who never fails to award the websites of Eli Soriano and his nephew Daniel Razon. I would bet my bottom dollar that this Philippine Web Awards is just another proganda machinery of this most anomalous religious syndicate headed by the fugitive Eli Soriano. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the earlier Philippine Web Awards (2001 and earlier), was the Ang Dating Daan website given an award back then? Also, I'll tell you the truth on how somebody's website be given an award here, first nominate them, second tell tehm a reason on why the website is notable then they'll award if if there are many people accesing and viewing the website. Usually 2 million above. Soriano's followers do not total 2 million + and so, do you think his followers simultaneously accessed the website to bypass the limit. Tsk, still another pessimistic response. Also, Soriano can't pay for many artists to come in the what you claim Fake Gawad Amerkia and be awarded. He is a fugitive and can't pay the bail for the two counts of rape filed by Veridiano (one ADD members who turned to an INC member) which was dismissed but then reopened by the Philippine's Justice Secretary. Also, "if there is no website, it doen't exist", there is no policy like that. Only a very pessimistic user who only thinks that the church is using WP as propaganda will think about things like that. Dar book (Complains?) 08:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of whether Soriano can or cannot pay for the plain tickets of the so-called awardees (of course he can, he is a big time swindler and owns many businesses) because the "awardees" would gladly pay the tickets themselves. It is also not true that Eli Soriano cannot pay the bail for his homosexual rape case, being a fugitive has nothing to do with his inability to pay bail, it has all to do with running from and refusing to face the law and refusing to accept whatever judgement is ruled by the courts. With regards to the Philippine Web Awards, who set it up? Who are the officers? Who are the judges? It is completely anonymous. A fictitious non-notable award where Soriano and Razon's websites always win. Whether I am pessimistic or optimistic is none of your business. Bottom line is you are a member of this most anomalous religious syndicate, you don't follow WP guidelines, you cannot speak English, you cannot provide reliable third-party published sources, and you have been proven to use a sockpuppet to abuse your editing privileges. To be quite honest, I don't know what you are still doing here. The article has been protected because of you, you are just a nuisance here. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Here look at this. It is about the Philippine Web Award's history, Soriano does not always win in this award winning body! Check their archives before judging it. Here, check this. Did Soriano win there? Still don't believe, check the other archieves. He only got the award on 2004, while the Phil Web Awards was already running way back in 1998. I'm a Nuiscance? You have crossed the line, and this is my last straw! My edits in non-related articles were not reverted, and even sometimes appreciated. Also, Wikiuserphil is not my sock, he has been an editor even before I first showed up. Not only that, I didn't even know the wiki guidlines before. Your lucky, because this might be my last post here, since I have work comming. But rest assured, whenever I have time, I will watch this page, but not edit it anymore. You have been warned by the admin who blocked my sock. You are harassing me. He said it himself. I need a vacation. WP is my only hobby, and you messed up all my plans! This gives me stress and I'm going to plan a break. I don't edit this article anymore. Let the other COI editors handle it. Can't we just settle this peacefully? Goodbye. Dar book (Complains?) 07:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dar book here you are again posting nothing but nonsense. Where did I accuse you of being Wikiuserphil's puppeteer? Yours is a ridiculous attempt to confuse the readers of this talk page. You are the confirmed puppeteer of Defenz 07 not Wikiuserphil. Nobody is even mentioning Wikiuserphil. Now, about the links you provided, where there do they actually give out the names of the people who make up the so-called "award giving body" in question? Again, you have proven my point that this non-notable "award", who would always award the websites of Soriano and his nephew Daniel Razon, is completely anonymous and therefore suspicious and spurious. Let me give you an example of a notable award worth mentioning in an encyclopedia entry, the Nobel Prize. Look at how transparent an authentic award giving body is, here is the board of directors of the foundation that runs the award. Also, it doesn't really matter if the spurious Philippine Web Awards awarded Soriano in the beginning or not, fake awards would tend to make themselves look credible first by awarding other people, or else it would be too obvious. Use your brain, Dar book, snap out of the cult conditioning! I'll tell you what, If you can give us any reliable third-party published source saying anything positive about Soriano himself then I will be more than happy to include it in the article myself, unfortunately there exists no such thing, which should really make you think twice about your idol. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. But I still sense bias in your edits. One thing is that you don't remove unreferenced non-promotional negative facts while you instantly removed unreferenced promotional facts. Also, not all websites will post their board of directors. Also, I did found this website, GMA is a known and trusted NEWS STATION. Dar book (Complains?) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's you again. No one is contesting that Soriano did receive the so-called award. My point is that the "award" is not notable enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia article. Also, we are not talking about "board of directors of websites". A website need not necessarily have a "board of directors". Even you can create your own website without the need for officers. We are talking about this spurious Philippine Web Awards being completely anonymous, in contrast with authentic award-giving bodies who would always devulge their leadership to the public. The mention of the board of directors of the Nobel Prize was just meant to support this. Your problem is you are always confused about what is being discussed. If you don't have the capacity to understand simple logic then how can you edit an encyclopedia? No wonder 99% of all your edits are being reverted by other editors, and that up to now you are still uploading illegal images to Wikipedia. All you do is bring chaos and garbage to Wikipedia. – Shannon Rose (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A little clarification, the images were orphaned because somebody removed the link to those images in the main article. The copyright of those images were not questioned by anybody nor they reverted 40% of my edits to the main article of the said pictures. Please try to read the said complaint before accusing me of uploading illegal images to Wikipedia and bring chaos and garbage to Wikipedia. Dar book (Complains?) 12:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bail

In November 2006, a arrest warrant against Soriano was issued by Judge Lucina Dayaon, Macabebe, RTC Branch 54. Eliseo Soriano on June 21, 2008, posted P 240,000 bail for another 2 counts of rape, before Judge Silvino Pampilo, Jr., Manila Regional Trial, after surrendering to a police Station 10 jailer Jun Gumaruin, Pandacan, Manila to avoid being apprehension. The indictment or criminal "Information" states that: "Soriano took advantage of his moral ascendancy and/or influence to direct his subordinate to come into his room, massage him and have anal intercourse, around 1:30 p.m. of May 17, 2000. The sexual acts were done against the will and consent, and to the damage and prejudice of the complainant, who was also a religious." Gumaru said: "He was not into hiding, and he was not arrested."Inquirer.net, Dating Daan’s Ely Soriano posts bail--Florentino floro (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Manila Standard Today however, reported that Regional State Prosecutor Jaime Umpa, as Pampanga assistant provincial prosecutor, was instrumental in the filing of criminal cases against Eliseo Soriano, the most vocal critic of the Iglesia ni Cristo. In this regard, Umpa's boss, Raul M. Gonzalez’s chief of staff, Undersecretary Fidel Exconde, is a leading member of the INC.manilastandardtoday.com, Handcuffed Meralco executives?--Florentino floro (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" (News Quotes)

Would editors please stop accusing each other of vandalism over the removal and readding of the news quotes. This is a good faith content dispute, not vandalism. Vandalism is when somebody knows that what they are doing is wrong and deliberately makes the article worse. I am sure that this does not apply here. I know that there have been editors seeking to remove critical material from this article, which rightly puts us on guard, but the removal of the news quotes seems legitimate to me. If anybody disagrees we can discuss it here, but lets stop reverting and accusing eachother. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that "vandalism" is a broad term, and used incorrectly by those who are inexperienced in Wikipedia. The issue at hand is about the way it's written may constitute a WP:LIVING violation, as it's giving undue weight to a negative incident. If we are to still keep it on the article, we need it formatted so it flows in with the article, not stand out, not to mention the possibility of copyright issues. I've seen other articles include short snippets (less than 3 or 4 sentences) of that quoted reference in the citation. Maybe that could be better? --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

After looking at what was emphasized. I feel that it should be included in the article as it documents what the prosecution believes what happened during the incidents, and is a help to that section. So I went ahead and added it to the beginning of the section. --w^{L<speak·check>} 11:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with what you did and believes that the whole article is, in its present form, presentable and quite informative. If we can gradually get rid of the self-serving (POV) bits and pieces scatered here and there then we are close to having a good article here. Kudos to DanielRigal for bringing this matter into concensus. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Falsification

This[1] shows that Soriano's bail and release were fraudulent and therefore he was sued for falsification: "Investigation showed that Soriano never surrendered nor was he arrested or detained at the Pandacan station on June 21, but a certificate of detention was still issued on his behalf by Pandacan Police Officer 3 June Gumaru, said Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-Manila chief Superintendent Joaquin Alva." So, I must re-add this, so that this Wikipedia article would be neutral and verifiable as to the fact of bail and release.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Defaced Wikipedia Page for Preacher Eliseo Soriano

Obviously, this page should be declared defaced in many levels.

Many information, accounts and even references placed here are speculations, malicious and curiously deceptive.

For one, this biography page reflects nothing but the sordid affairs of the elite few who have the power to impose their own rules. Rules that lean more to favor their whims and likings. Rules, when questioned, are obviously not one bound for thorough review or balanced inspection.

There are few questions that beg to be answered?

1. It WP prohibits entries that will promote, advertise or praise a certain person or thing, does this then give rights or freedom to fault-finders, sock puppets and enemies of the person with a page to vandalize, and assume their role as vanguards of what they termed as "true, accurate" information? What true, accurate and credible information can we expect from enemies?

2. WP, which was founded based on the spirit of collaboration, free exchange of true, accurate and verifiable information, is now losing this quality over the years. One reason for this degradation is brought about by quack editors and quasi-righteous users. Should we expect certainty in rough, wild waters of collaboration?

3. Why is this page, together with other pages connected to this preacher, loaded with vile attacks and negativity that will put to shame the WP pages of the world's most notorious criminals? Why then are the pages of the people this preacher exposes glowing clean as if these are people brought here by the heavens? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Manalo . Then look at Eli Soriano's WP page. Compare.

Petersantos (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "defaced" is the right term. Defacement means blatant vandalism and covers obscene messages, gibberish, nonsense, blatant hoaxes and the like. I don't see that here at the moment although there has also been genuine defacement in the past, much of it defamatory and homophobic.

What we may have is a lack of balance. There have been people trying to whitewash the article by removing everything negative and others keen to add more negative coverage. With both sides pushing as hard as they can, it is possible that one side has succeeded in pushing it too far one way. If you can point to any specific aspects of the negative coverage which are not sourced to reliable sources then they can be looked at, and removed, if they are unsubstantiated. Negative coverage should not be over done (see WP:Undue) but we can't ignore significant things like the pending rape case or the arrest warrant, if they are true. That said, we should also include balanced coverage of Soriano's own explanations of these matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your deep concern to bringing WP's credibility and integrity restored.

My concerns personally are entries that appear conclusive based on the trial being staged through the publicity via the media and the press. By simply knowing the state and ills of Philippine press, you will realize that among the qualities of news presentation in this country are tainted with sensationalism, malice and even pornography.

Religious bias, especially one hurled against the preacher, Eliseo Soriano, is a reality. In the Philippines, even a three year old child knows his programs on television and can sing the Ang Dating Daan (The Old Path) program's jingle. That is how popular this evangelist has become. As his popularity jumps, his enemies increases also. One is the powerful and influential Iglesia ni Cristo, the powerful sect who can make or break a politician's dream of winning top posts in the government.

One particular issue that stirred negative perception among people against Soriano was the multiple suspension and ban orders imposed by the Movie Television Review Classification Board or MTRCB. In a way and finally caught the attention of one Philippine university's Law Review Journal who reviewed the case and concluded that the whole brouhaha surrounding the MTRCB's decision erroneously and maliciously put Soriano in the bad light. The law review journal's analysis confirmed that Soriano's right to freedom to express and his inherent right as broadcaster were abused. -- Petersantos (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be informed that Petersantos, like fellow Eli Soriano follower Dar book, has been permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to abuse of account privileges (i.e. using a sock puppet to whitewash a duly-sourced article).

Wikipedia is, above all, an encyclopedia, and its articles should only use reliable, third-party, published sources. Editors like Petersantos and Dar book seek to undermine the integrity of those reliable sources by using all sorts of trickery and deception to inject unsourced promotional bits and pieces in an obvious attempt to sanitize the article which, I believe, is reflective of the ways and character of their leader and organization as a whole.

Please stay vigilant as incarnations of Petersantos a.k.a. Journeyist a.k.a. Patrick Lim a.k.a. OQtE5AokaDv4 etc. are destined to resurface from the inner recesses of what seems to be the most notorious pseudo-Christian movement in the Philippines. - Shannon Rose (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, Wikipedia you need to hang your head in shame

The very first reference for this article comes from the website of -- guess who? The subject of the article. That's who. The whole article is a crock. What happened to so called Wikipedia objectivity? Very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.176.181 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a load of templates and tags you can use to dispute whatever you see on the article. Instead of badmouthing the project, why don't you do something about it? What makes the article a crock, what could be done to change that? These comments are not helping anything. --w^{L<speak·check>}

I don't need templates to dispute what I see in this article, or to call it a crock. I don't know about your previous editing of Wiki but if your response to me here is any indication then I think you need to start again and accept that it is more important that Wiki is well written, accurate, neutral and objective. Tell us if you think this a good article (I do not mean GA). Regarding you urging me to do something abut it, why do you think there are so many people on Wiki who will never edit an article because they know their efforts will be constantly removed by the POV pushers? Making a point on a talk page might achieve little in your opinion, but it wastes a hell of a lot less time for the editor. And it unearths people who might be more interested in lecturing other editors rather than insisting on quality articles in Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.176.181 (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What? I thought this was supposed to be a BLP!

I edited this BLP article in good faith, removing a claim in the intro that the subject is an international fugitive. There are two references regarding this, and one of them says he surrendered to the court and was freed on bail (so he can't be a fugitive). Remember what Jimbo Wales said about Biographies of Living Persons? He said "we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.". Remember what BlP also says? It says '"poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I removed the contentious claim because it is poorly sourced, with one reference contradicting the other. It has now been restored by a user who wonders if I am a banned user called petersantos. I am not. I simply want to make wiki more encyclopedic, but the two users who restored the information, User:Conrad940 and User:Shannon Rose clearly want POV retained, to the detriment of Wikipedia. Shame on you both.

Also, I removed the claim that "Soriano is popular for criticizing various other religious groups...." Read that again. And again. The leader of a minority group is popular for criticizing other religious groups? Pigs might fly. I also did a brief general edit which improved the aticle. Naturally enough, it was deleted by the pov pushers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.164.160 (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

hi, please read the rest of the content. immediately following the newspaper story about him surrendering, another report came out saying he falsified his surrender. meaning he didn't really surrender. I've put a bullet so it won't be missed again. i hope this clears up things for you. Conrad940 (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Soriano is an international fugitive, it is a duly-sourced fact. Reliable, third-party, published sources are used in compliance with WP:RS. A broadsheet newspaper article came out saying that he surrendered, but after that another broadsheet newspaper article came out saying that it was faked and he did not really surrender. Can't you read? If he is really on bail and not a fugitive (an international fugitive at that) then why is he on the Interpol wanted list in the Interpol official website??? The link to that website is also used as reference in the article. Here it is. Your leader is a wanted man, you can cry blood but you won't be able to whitewash that reality. Your leader is wanted by the Philippine government and the Interpol for homosexual rape. If you type his name on the Google toolbar the suggestions "Eli Soriano rape case" and "Eli Soriano Interpol" automatically come up. Your leader is notable for 1. being an international fugitive and 2. being a leader of a religious group. The truth is that you are no other than perma-blocked user Petersantos a.k.a. Journeyist a.k.a. Patrick Lim a.k.a. OQtE5AokaDv4 etc., etc. You are not editing in good faith. You are editing with a heavy POV. Stop idiotizing the editors here. We know who you are. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

POV-intro

The introduction to this article needs to be a summary of the entire article. As it is right now, it doesn't give the gist of why he's controversial, which tips it as positive POV. As with many articles I come around this project, the first sentence should always be name, birth date and place, and occupation. Deviating from that for any reason can be grounds of pushing a certain point of view. Since "fugitive" is not an occupation, I removed it and I might add a sentence as to why he is. Also there should be sources on the intro as well. --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated the fugitive part because the first sentence is usually a justification of notability, be it fame or notoriety, and not just a declaration of the subject's occupation (at the moment a Google search for Eli Soriano fugitive returns 1,590 hits). In view of notability "international fugitive" is more pressing than "controversial Filipino televangelist" and so it took precedence. It would be anti-climatic to reverse their positions. Nevertheless, I am for the improvement of the article and have nothing against restructuring the first paragraph to make it more encyclopedic. Perhaps we can learn something from the Warren Jeffs article as it is excellently written. Eli Soriano may also be fitting for WP:CRIME. – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs is a great template to work with when it comes to this article, because his status within a church as well as his criminal actions are similar to Soriano. It shows what I was intending to do later on with this. But one thing I realized is that "fugitive" is only temparary. There's a chance he will be caught, and it will no longer be accurate once he's caught. I'll welcome the Crime WikiProject to help us out on this. I think they know more about handling articles like this than WikiProject Christianity. --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shannon Rose. And I even think that "accused rapist" gives a more accurate description if what looking for is a "gist of why he's controversial". But that would be too much and would probably violate some WP policy. Conrad940 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

On being impartial

You might want to check out the following link as it clarifies some allegations (most especially on the interpol and bureau of immigration issues) in this wikipedia article that are said to be "truthful". http://www.zimbio.com/Bro.+Eliseo+F.+Soriano/articles/31/Interpol+Wanted+People+Choice+Awardee+Truth 121.1.61.208 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to decline your proposal. A blog entry written by a follower of the subject cannot be impartial and grossly fails WP:RS. The article, in its present form, is adequately-referenced using reliable, third-party, published sources, which is defined as "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Blogs and websites connected to Soriano or his followers in any way are not acceptable since coverage should be from "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as per WP:GNG). Thank you for taking time to discuss your concerns. – Shannon Rose (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We need the facts, not spin

It seems that friends of Soriano are editing again. I am not going to revert them on the spot as they are making points that would be valid if they were proven:

1. That the case against Soriano has been dismissed
2. That the Interpol red notice does not constitute an arrest warrant.

The first point is very important if it is true but the huge chunk of verbiage added lacks any references except one which is transparently irrelevant[2]. Does anybody have references for it? If it is true that he has been acquitted then we have to rewrite the article significantly to reduce coverage of the matter and make it clear that the charge ended in acquittal. If it is not true then we need to revert the whole lot.

The second point is arguable. The Interpol web site does say that "An Interpol Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant."[3] however it is clearly something quite similar. The purpose of a red notice is described as "To seek the arrest or provisional arrest of wanted persons with a view to extradition"[4]. We should modify the article to reflect this distinction however there is no justification for removing the phrase "international fugitive" (unless the case really has been dropped) as Interpol lists the red notices under the category of "Fugitives" and the service handling them is called "Fugitive investigative services"[5].

So, we need facts! This article is not meant to be pro or anti Soriano. If somebody can dig up the true and up-to-date facts of the matter we can make sure that the article does not overstate or underplay the significance of these events. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the "arrest warrant" again as we can't call it that if Interpol themselves do not[6]. If there is some other wording that captures the effect of the red notice without using the term "arrest warrant" then that should replace the removed text. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

is it spin? who's to judge? whether it is or not, the readers can decide themselves by checking facts. Or if you wan't go ahead and add an explanation. but don't censor. that is what's in the source, it is even in it's title. Conrad940 (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

By spin, I meant that we occasionally have pro and anti Soriano people in here trying to tilt the article from time to time and that we can't allow this. In the most recent case the pro-Soriano camp used a rather minor but valid objection (the precise status of the red notices) as an excuse to remove all reference to him as a fugitive. That was spin.

Your new text is fine. It deals with the valid objection while not letting the pro-Soriano camp downplay the seriousness of the matter.

As for the claim that the charges are dropped, I think the lack of any attempt to reference it speaks volumes. I left it in to give them a fair chance to prove their claims but they didn't take it. I am glad to see it reverted. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a couple of single purpose accounts that are not here to defend neutrality. Would an RfC be called for here? Or what another method of dispute resolution be more fitting? ThemFromSpace 04:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Awards and Recognition section

I am removing this section due to a lack of verifiable 3rd party sources. www.eliseosoriano.com is hardly a reliable source is it? Prior to restoration or reversion please consult WP:PROVEIT WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCES. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Next question.. Can youtube video's be used as a source? - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this section because the supposed "awards" listed here are all unnotable. Not all award giving bodies are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also, notice so-called "awards" like 2008 Most Popular Website, 2008 People's Choice Award (Organization Category), 2007 Most Popular Website and 2007 People's Choice Award (Organization Category). The website and the organization are not Eliseo Soriano, awards for the website and the organization should not be taken as Eli Soriano's awards. This is utter nonsense. - Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.. However, you may have noticed that the page is protected from editing due to edit warring and the inability of some editors to reach a consensus .. Perhaps you should take your argument to the admin whom locked it. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The stuff just got reinserted again and so I took another look at it before removing it again.

Key points:

• The videos (or at least the two I looked at) are posted on YouTube by a user called "angdatingdaan". They are worthless as references. Adding them to Wikipedia is basically just spam.
• There is one RS reference for the awards: [7]. This makes it clear that some, but not all, of these awards were won based on SMS votes. When it comes to music charts, we have along standing policy that SMS based charts don't count. I think it is much the same for awards. Furthermore, the awards are mostly for Ang Dating Daan not Soriano himself although the article does mention him.

My view is that there is no justification for a whole section on these awards as they are not very significant in themselves. The real question is whether they tell us anything. A sentence or two on them in the Ang Dating Daan article is justified. I am not convinced that they belong here but they could be mentioned, very briefly, as a way of indicating the high esteem in which Soriano was held, via his organisations, prior to his legal troubles. Perhaps more interesting are the results of the 2008 awards [8] which show ongoing support despite the legal troubles. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The content was reinserted with the comment "Winners of American Idol are voted by SMS too. Non-notable?". I think that deserves an answer. The answer is that American Idol is a massive media event that would make its winners notable even if they were picked by a spinning a bottle. The web awards are not in this category. They do get a little media attention but they don't count for much in the grand scheme of things. I am not 100% against them being mentioned in the article, if it serves some genuine encyclopaedic purpose, but spamming the article with a load of YouTube videos is unacceptable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As the person repeatedly reinserting these spam links is not engaging in discussion, I have no choice but to start reverting them as vandalism and handing out warnings. Its a pity but that's how it goes. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am watching too if you need a witness. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

august 2003 libel case

Although the Manila Times no longer supports the article i found a link on way back. Can that be used as a ref?? http://web.archive.org/web/20071217182209/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/oct/06/yehey/metro/20071006met1.html - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Using archive.org is a perfectly legitimate way to link to material that has been removed from the web. The only question is why it was removed? If it was due to a general clean up of old articles (e.g. a site relaunch without an archive of older articles, or older articles being moved behind a paywall) then that is fine. Only if it was removed due to the specific article being retracted (e.g. due to inaccuracy, libel or whatever) would it be an issue and we would need to think carefully about whether the article could be still considered reliable after being repudiated by its publisher. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do some research.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes

There are a couple of changes I think should be made, that I believe will make this a more accurate article. First I found a link to the story on the libel case.http://web.archive.org/web/20071217182209/http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/oct/06/yehey/metro/20071006met1.html I can find nothing to suggest that any part of the story was fabricated or retracted. Secondly the awards and recognition section needs to be removed completely. The references are youtube videos and the awards actually go to the "church" not the man. Does anyone have any objections? Opinions? Or concerns about these changes? - 4twenty42o (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with the changes. - Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting to make any changes until everyone involved has a chance to take a look and respond but thank you SR for your input. - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes have been made for about a week or so. There does not appear to be any more serious problems. Does anyone else have any information on Soriano? I would like to expand the article but there appears to be very little information online that is not soaking in controversy. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lets discuss any changes here before we make them. There are several people watchlisting this and if we need help finding a consensus it wont take nearly as long. I am searching for references on what is tagged. If anyone else finds them post here. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Follower of International Fugitive Eliseo Soriano's Dirty Tricks Foiled Again!

Please know that users 1K Years, The Editor's Pen, and 124.217.31.65 have been positively identified as none other than perma-blocked Eliseo Soriano follower Felix Natalo. This is history repeating itself, dear friends. Do you still remember our experience with perma-blocked Petersantos and Dar book? Fellow editors, let us be aware of the strategies of this group and remain vigilant in guarding the integrity of this article! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 15:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured that was who the new editors were... I have been watching 1K for a few days and thought the style looked familiar. - 4twenty42o (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The only way this COI will end is that both parties agree to insert both good and bad information about the subjects. All I see here are negative information, there are good referenced facts about this guy, but editors like Shannon Rose instantly claim those facts as "unnotable". Tch. Dar book (Complains?) 06:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC) <

There is no need to "end the COI, Dar book." A decent number of good faith editors are quite vigilant in watching all topics related to this international fugitive Eliseo Soriano. You can act out your COI all you want: you can edit war, create sock puppets (like you and others have done over and over), etc. but all your efforts will just be wasted: your edits will be reverted, you will be blocked and even banned from editing. The problem is there exists no current reliable source praising your idol outside his own cult following and outside the broadcasting network owned by his cult and operated by his deputy-nephew (CEO). The first rule for including any relevant piece of information in an encyclopedia is that it must come from "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Gossips from opinion blogs, youtube videos, and propaganda claims on the subject's own websites and non-notable websites related to the subject's own organization that you keep on posting are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." How many times have this been explained to you by not only myself but other editors as well? – Shannon Rose ^Talk 17:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already agreed to what you've said, I followed the rules by not using Youtube videos as referenced. But what bothers me is that after months of watching your edits. I began to doubt if you are in good-faith. If you are a good-faith, non-POV user, then why:

• • • ...do you call this organization a cult without citing "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.".
    • Revert some of my edits even when I'm not doing any harm to an article and even calling my edit as "vandalism"?
    • Removing my opinion in this talk page?
    • Removing the template I added to this talk page?
    • Took back your personal opinion about the Bereans (which is the only site that calles Soriano's group a cult) which you once said, are "unreliable sources"?
    • Attempted to "harass" me in my talk page? Luckily, someone warned you.
    • Finally, when a follower of Soriano posts his idea in this talk page, you immediately posted that this user and including me "are permanently blocked".
    • Claiming that the Philippine Web Awards' award for Soriano is for the show; I agreed. But when I mention the award in the Ang Dating Daan article, you instantly remove it.

Also, take a look at the title of this section, isn't it somewhat biased and negative? By the way you talk, you keep on insisting the readers of this talk page that I am permanently blocked, trying to whitewash the article and COI. Why not try to examine what does each side (pro-Soriano and anti-Soriano) have to say about the articles involving this heavily-persecuted controversial religion? It is now obvious that editors like you who are obviously in COI also (that is to say, against Soriano). Dar book (Complains?) 07:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct about there being good referenced material about Soriano. As soon as you propose changes and add reliable 3rd party references and knock off the silly sockpuppet games, then that information can be added. Keep up the silliness and NPOV issues however and the COI will continue. Shannon is preventing the socks from bloating membership numbers, removing sourced content and creating patent nonsense. If you would care to contribute constructively Shannon, myself and quite a few others watching will make sure you get a fair shake. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)