Talk:Angel Munoz (CPL)

TroyMaclure (comments)

First off, I'd like to ask a question to the person who wrote the comment a few above and attributed the "bias" tags all to one David Miller. I'm confused as to why his being an "ex-CAL admin" makes any difference to your argument? If I said I was an ex-Fireman, does this invalidate the scope of my claims if I were to edit an article on forest fires? I really don't know who David Miller is, nor you for that matter, but I think your vitriol sounds like nothing more than a cheap attempt to discredit him by making him sound like he has a vendetta against you.

Second, I think the person two above me (Assuming it's still Mr. Munoz or one of his editing henchmen) GROSSLY misunderstands the concept of "public references". The idea of proper citations means (as stated at the TOP of this page) that "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" articles are not valid and should be removed. Why? Because unchecked this would lead to ALL kinds of abuse.

I would postulate that this article is VERY poorly sourced, which is admittedly a step UP from "not sourced", but it does not change the overtly self-glorifying language which accompanies the articles. Why do I say the articles are poorly sourced? Let's take a look at each reference, one by one:

Reference 1: This should be changed to the web site of the entity (I'll fix this in a moment), rather than a random .biz website.

Reference 2: This links to a web page that purports to be the website of a "video gaming team", in which it merely says "Some have said" that he is the "Father". Who said it? Does this qualify as common? My thought is no.

Reference 3: This at least appears to be some sort of video gaming resource site. However, the article again says "is considered by some" without any sort of reference. This also directly contradicts the "Many" of the wiki's sentence.

Reference 4: This is the EXACT SAME article as Reference 2, which again cites the editorial's opinion and not anything approaching fact. In addition, this is a "video game team" web site, which does not approach a legitimate source in any possible way.

Reference 5: I see absolutely nothing in this article that says where Mr. Munoz is an "outspoken advocate". In fact, there is nothing about Mr. Munoz in this article whatsoever.

Reference 6: This is an illegally scanned article from an unknown magazine, hosted on Mr. Munoz's website (the poster apparently finds himself quite clever in using the IP of the server instead of the DNS name). If this was linked to an official web site in a non-infringing manner, it would most likely be a legitimate press source. The source appears to be presented in an effort to make it appear as if Mr. Munoz vaguely possesses a college degree, which he in fact does not.

Reference 7: Same as Reference 6. How do we know that a jpg hosted on Mr. Munoz's site is not breaking copyright laws OR has not been modified in any way from the original?

Reference 8: Hey! This is actually a legitimate reference (in my opinion). Mr. Munoz states he is the founder, and lo and behold, newworld's web site backs this claim up.

Reference 9: Good! A nice link to the web site. However, this should be more of an off-site link than a real biblio reference.

Reference 10: While the about page is a nice place for explaining what an entity is about, this does not mean the fact that the web site is actually a respected source or unbiased. Then again, this might be where Mr. Munoz obtained his definition of "unbiased" in the first place. I can (and will) easily fix this by putting the claim in quotes, since it is a claim made by the wording of the web site.

Reference 11: Good! A nice link to the web site. However, this should be more of an off-site link than a real biblio reference.

Reference 12: Good! The web site for the CPL says Angel is the president. This is a proper link (though aren't you going a bit overboard with the references at this point?)

Reference 13 and 14: These are real sources, but are misquoted in the article. According to the articles, Mr. Munoz merely reported the hijacking of his site's tags to the search engine company. He did not write any of the legislation, nor did he assist in it - he merely reported an incident that was only taken seriously once MSNBC reported it, and even then MSNBC would never claim they "assisted" in writing the legislation!

Reference 15: Borderline. This is a description about "CAL", and while linking to the site's about page is the best way, one should exercise caution to not make conclusions on the site's claims without other references.

Reference 16: The link is to a legitimate article (for once), but the article is about the President of something called the "Global Gaming League" and his push to get video gaming sanctioned as an Olympic event. At NO point in the article does it state anything about Mr. Munoz, nor does it make ANY conclusions about the "success" of his venture of that of the Global Gaming League.

Reference 17: Again, the original document seems to have been copied without consent from the originating web site and posted to Mr. Munoz's website (again, "cleverly" concealed via the use of an IP address instead of www.thecpl.com). In the case of HTML copies, it's obviously quite easy to modify the content - the article could be entirely self-generated. Why not link to the original?

Reference 18: The book looks like it's probably terrible, but the reference is a legitimate one. Make sure to use quotes around the claims a site makes for all such references of this type.

Reference 19: The book monster gaming indeed has a forward by him. I didn't check to see if it was actually published (since apparently people can read it online), but otherwise the link is accurate.

Reference 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25: All these links indeed say that these bands have performed at a "CPL" event in the past. Since Mr. Munoz is president of the CPL (per the website), it stands to reason that he has "worked with them" in some capacity. However, the tone of the article appears to make it sound as if he was pivotal to their careers, launched them, or managed them, which is not backed up by fact.

Reference 26: I can't find anywhere in the reference that says Mr. Munoz owned this art gallery.

Reference 27: Looks fine.

Reference 28: Looks fine. Also, Mr. Munoz is listed on IMDB in this capacity as well. Inspiration is mentioned on the site, though I can't recall where I found it.

Reference 29: Looks fine, though admittedly it's just an article where Mr. Munoz claims he paid the monies required. I'm not sure how legitimate of a source of information "csnation" is, having not been a visitor before, but it seems good enough for these purposes.

That's about it for references. Let's move on to some other observations about the article:

External Links: Half of these are hosted on the "sneaky" IP address that actually maps to www.thecpl.com. This is copyright infringement, or at the very least a consent notice needs to be given and posted.

Edits: Many of the edits seems to have been made by the person featured in the article or addresses assigned to 1-3 of his "employees". This seems to violate the spirit of wikipedia, if anything.

Overall: The article feels like it is a stub rather than an actual article. The overall tone appears to be an attempt to beatify and aggrandize the subject rather than provide a neutral, non-biased biography of him. I sincerely believe that it is Mr. Munoz's intention to abuse the open nature of Wikipedia to substantiate his own high opinion of himself as "fact" by having it on a site such as this.

My suggestion is to delete this article entirely as it isn't really of a figure important or essential enough (any more than you or I) to keep it. Mr. Munoz, you seem to have access to more than one web site - perhaps you should post your own bio web page there and say whatever you wish to about yourself on it. At least you won't have to cite your references!

Editor Arguing

This is clearly an interesting conversation, I marked it up a little bit to keep discussion orderly and in a manner consistent to a conversation. Apologies to someone if I cut out a portion which you found relevant but to my mind, the discussion which is here now is indicative of the overall controversy here so far. Since TroyMaclure went through such trouble to outline his problems with this article, I would suggest maybe if the editors can't resolve this themselves someone calls for opinions on this or asks for arbitration on this article to get some kind of help from more senior people on Wikipedia to resolve this.

Since I am in need of something to do and I keep seeing this page get edited, I'll see if I can provide some third-party method to this madness and rebalance the force here (sorta speak). Here's what I think the editors here need to do.

Suggestions

The sources here need revision, they are mostly hosted on webspace owned by the person this article is about, clearly that is not good. Consider contacting the media companies involved asking if they have a hard-copy of these articles for use on the Internet. Scanning images of newspaper articles is something I'm unclear on, you may ask for help on this one.
Look over WP:POLICY
Look over WP:NPOV as this article really skates on the edges of neutrality.
Someone has nominated this article as not citing it's sources properly, run through policies for sourcing and check to make sure you're following the guidelines for proper sourcing
Do not just haphazardly remove/add tagging to the article without at least providing reasoning for this; Wikipedia is a community project, it is not a sole-proprietorship like a corporation is. Just because you write an article does not mean you understand the guidelines here or have carte-blanche to say whatever.

ZBrannigan 18:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observations

The opening statement(s) need to be revised with proper sources. The material provided is from a website which quotes an article by a fifteen year old individual; hardly source worthy material IMO ZBrannigan 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father of E-Sports In addition, this needs fixing the sources cited for this claim are made by 1) A company which has been awarded money by Mr Munoz through their player "Voo" and the second source is a cite which I would be ill to consider "journalistic" Perhaps we can have a source from an even slightly main-stream media outlet citing this? ZBrannigan 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olympics Cited Source does not prove anything beyond that CPL is mentioned ONCE in this entire article. In fact, from reading it, you might get the impression CPL is a tac-on with these other folks leading the charge, consider revising it because it really doesn't prove anything, in fact it's a detract.
Munoz has been featured in numerous interviews, TV broadcasts, documentaries and publications. In the March 2000 issue of Texas Monthly magazine, Munoz was selected as one of the "Top 25 Most Powerful Texans in High Tech" along with Michael Dell, Chairman of Dell Computers, Thomas Engibous, Chairman of Texas Instruments, Edward Whitacre, Jr., CEO of AT&T (formerly SBC Communications), and Leonard Roberts, former CEO of Radio Shack. [17] In 2005, journalists Heather Chaplin and Aaron Ruby, featured Munoz in the fourth chapter of their book Smartbomb. The book is a candid portrait of the "mavericks and geniuses behind the videogame revolution." [18] sounds as if it were taken from text somewhere?

FTC Trade Regulations

To whomever edited this article last, please read up on SOAPBOX claims. You cannot claim Mr Munoz enacted a law or aided in it when it's already on the books in the United States. It's a well documented law, it is just not overly enforced. Therefore, I've re-written the paragraph a bit to reflect his role properly in the story.

Lyrics

You cannot assert that Mr Munoz aided in writing the lyrics to a song which you do not have a source on. If this person writes an article in a publication which is JOURNALISTIC in nature then you're more than welcome to use that as a source, until then it's a non-sourced and "outrageous" claim and I've removed it.

Images

I don't know what the deal with linking to scanned images of newspaper articles is and I'm sure the images contained in them PROBABLY causes some kind of copyright issue right from the get-go. I am going to remove all images Mr Munoz scanned onto his companies website until someone far more senior than I claims it is legitimate to do so.

non-registered users

We seem to have a large influx of users who are not currently registered editing this article for either vandalism purposes or just the pure anonymity of it all. I'm going to request this article get locked out from non-registered folks editing it.

vandalism

Please use the discussion page herein to discuss what exactly you feel is vandalism of this article and where you removed it, claiming vandalism on a page is a pretty hefty charge and as someone here who is making edits trying to keep this article from meeting deletion standards, I'd like to know just what I am vandalizing.

AFD

non-notable. ZBrannigan 21:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]