Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Razon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE MAN WITH A FACE OF A FALSE gOD.

[edit]

This man is great!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Daniel S. Razón → Daniel Razon — to Daniel Razon. WP:COMMONNAME: "Daniel S. Razón gives out zero hits in Google News while "Daniel Razon" has plenty. –Howard the Duck 02:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both Daniel S. Razón and Daniel Razon return zero hits in Google News because the subject is unnotable [and the article will be deleted on a 2nd AfD]. Article was kept due to a sly tactic of requesting for an early closure instead of letting the extension run its due course. The speedy closure was requested right after the pro-keep editor Howard the Duck dumped faux RS to support the illusion of notability during the time when pro-delete editors were usually inactive. Upon coming home from work, I was surprised to see a closing tag on the AfD, I tried to post a rebuttal but it was too late. A dirty trick from a duck's rear end, so to speak. Again, I am voting no to the move request because both Daniel S. Razón and Daniel Razon return zero hits in Google News. Do click each one in turn to see for yourselves. – Shannon Rose Talk 20:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Here's the proper Google News link: Daniel Razon (49) vs. Daniel S. Razón (2). –Howard the Duck 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't possibly assume good faith with you because I experienced your dirty tricks first hand and knows for a fact that you are an editor who cannot be trusted. First of all, you went to ANI and requested a speedy closure to the AfD discussion immediately after you dumped your solitary faux RS, which you sweated blood to find, during the time that we, the pro-delete editors, were not around. And now that your lack of RS was due to a search with the diacritic tactic has been exposed as false, because both returned zero results at Google News (what would you expect from an unnotable subject?), you added the search word "location: Philippines" on Razon. Should we now buy into this sleight of hand again and bin the diacritic? Why don't we try the same search with the diacritic intact. What happened? We get the same number of hits as the one without the diacritic! So, there is absolutely no point in moving the article. – Shannon Rose Talk 23:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, journalists Balares and Losorata have been confirmed members of the religious cult co-headed by the subject as well as employees of UNTV and this fact will shatter the RS status of their articles. But the ammunition for this and other things has nothing to do with this debate and will come out in due time on the 2nd AfD. So, this thing is far from settled. – Shannon Rose Talk 23:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the middle initial has to go anyway, and WP:MOSPHIL#Modern figures says "that no diacritics are to be used unless they are widely used, as in the case of the name José and the surname Osmeña." –Howard the Duck 04:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need. If you Google or Bing "Daniel Razon" this is the first website that will come up. If you search for "Daniel Razon" in WP's search engine, you automatically land here. You only change the name of an article if the present rendition makes finding the article difficult or causes confusion. There is absolutely no need to do that here. – Shannon Rose Talk 04:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have to follow WP:COMMONNAME or the "policy of least astonishment". –Howard the Duck 04:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and the present rendition is the common name. We are not speaking about changing any names here: Daniel Razón and Daniel razon are the same name. If the name being used here is Daniel Razón and you are proposing it to be changed/moved to Mickey Mouse (provided that the subject is indeed Mickey Mouse), then WP:COMMONNAME would be the correct policy to quote. At the moment it is perfectly compliant with WP:COMMONNAME. – Shannon Rose Talk 14:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er... his common name is "Daniel Razon" without the middle initial and the diacritic. It's like John F. Kennedy; JFK's common name always has his middle initial and has no diacritics, hence it's not located at John Kennedy or worse, John Kennédy.
I can be appeased with leaving the middle initial, but the diacritic MUST be removed. Originally, this was at "Daniel S. Razon" but was moved by User:Lagalag to the present location when he mass moved a large number of Philippine biographical articles to one with accents. We even had Richard Gutiérrez then. –Howard the Duck 15:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Just because search engines lead you to this page even if you type his name with diacritic and middle initial doesn't mean it's the common name, it only indicates we have good search engines nowadays. Also take into account that pretty much everywhere else he's named as simply 'Daniel Razon'... in which case the Wikipedia title is the exception and not the common name.--112.203.97.53 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I checked 3 of the references currently in the article, semi-randomly, and they all use "Daniel Razon". There's absolutely zero reason we should do different then what the outside world does (One important caveat here being that redirects and mentioning the "correct" name, with middle initial and/or diacritics, in the first sentence is important).
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The middle initial can be mentioned in the lead. The diacritic must be removed throughout the article. –Howard the Duck 11:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. I tend to agree, but there seems to be some support for at least showing a persons "native" name in the lead. We really need to start an RFC/Cent discussion regarding the use of diacritics here on en.wikipedia sometime soon. I'm involved in another discussion that I started myself about this issue, and I've seen it come up again and again on several RM's and in general discussions here on en.wiki.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a relevant guideline for Philippine-releated articles: WP:MOSPHIL#Modern figures. That should be followed. –Howard the Duck 06:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That a Style Guideline "should be followed" is simply your invention, Howard. WP:MOSPHIL explicitly states that, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
Your first argument in favor of this proposed move was that the diacritic was getting in the way of Google News, and that was why you sweated blood to find a single RS in support of your illusion of notability (if he was really notable why did you need to beg at ANI to speed-up the closure immediately after dumping the faux RS and while I was not around?). That has been proven false as both searches, with or without the diacritic, returned the same number of hits at Google News (90% of it is just the same news article repeated over and over in different sites). Then you said that, at least, the middle initial has to go. Which has been proven false again by the very Style Guideline you quoted, which suggests, "The first mention of the subject should be in bold and include the whole name, with the mother's maiden name (if used) between the first name and surname." Now, you are using another trick!
If you search for Daniel Razon (not Razón) in WP, you are immediately taken to this article. If you search for the same in Google, Bing, Yahoo! or any other major search engine, this article comes up on top. So, what the heck are you obsessing about? This article is perfectly-functional, current name and all, and commonsense should tell you that if something is perfectly-functional then there is no need to alter it. Your first notion (that it is getting in the way of searches) has already been proven wrong, why else do you want this changed save a personal obsession to get things done your way? Style Guideline is not policy! Anyway, just for the benefit of your sanity, only so that you may have peace... I am now agreeing to the move. That should set you jumping:-) – Shannon Rose Talk 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinions. Anyone else? –Howard the Duck 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, those are facts not opinions. And you really need to thank me, not because of any opinions, but because of my compassion for your obsessive efforts to get what you want (it's like your brain is going to snap if you fail to get it) and so I have decided to change my vote to support. Take it as a humanitarian move:-) – Shannon Rose Talk 18:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

BLP violations in Razon and Soriano articles

[edit]

Both articles have descriptions concerning Soriano's 'international fugitive' status. This claim uses a link to a local tabloid paper and a notice at the Interpol website, which the former refers to.

However, there is no such notice in the Interpol website about Eli Soriano. In the Interpol's Red Notice list, there is no Soriano that refers to the preacher, nor is he present in the list of suspects from the Philippines when searching the Interpol database.

I request concerned editors to please rectify Soriano's 'international fugitive' claim by providing reliable sources which are not the two already provided as the source from the Interpol doesn't exist, or remove the line altogether for being a BLP violation. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info should be removed IMMEDIATELY when there are no sources. The dead link needs to be investigated, though. Or you can try WP:BLP/N. –Howard the Duck 06:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'll have to leave that to named editors like you. The Eli Soriano article is semi-protected, and in the Daniel Razon article Shannon is flagging IP users like me for vandalism for correcting that claim. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can try removing it here. I'd won't go to the Eli Soriano article, if someone reverts, report it to WP:BLP/N. –Howard the Duck 06:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again...

[edit]

Explain yourself. Shannon Rose, how is all of that unnotable and/or non-RS? Also you have to back-up your claim that there is a conflict of interest here. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Isang Araw Lang blog has to go. –Howard the Duck 14:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'll look for another source. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to explain myself to you. You are the one who needs to solicit consensus before making major edits on a controversial article. Present your references one by one and let us all come together and decide which of them is RS and relevant to the article. Don't just dump local award nominations and unnotable awards as well as blogs and websites owned by Razon and Co (like isangarawlang.org to the article. – Shannon Rose Talk 17:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are all properly sourced. It may look unnotable to you, but the government websites, newspapers, and online magazines I cited are more than reliable to show Razon's achievements. As for Isang Araw Lang, he doesn't own it by himself, it's a joint project with the humanitarian NGO Kamanggagawa Foundation. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at the reverted article again, it does seem that including references to the Isang Araw Lang project does present a problem since Razon is too closely related to it, so it's removed. For the other complaint regarding how there is a supposed lack of consensus, see WP:DRNC: your revert indicates you don't just like the edits as plain as day. If Shannon is unfamiliar with the awards presented, I suggest he reads the corresponding Wikipedia articles for the awards such as Awit Awards, and for those which do not have wiki articles he can read how these awards are present in Filipino artist articles such as Gerald Anderson's.

If you have any more problems with the local sources that were referenced, ask in the Tambayan noticeboard as they will be more knowledgeable in local sources. Of course we're still open to discuss what other changes can be made. --112.203.97.53 (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRNC is an essay, not a policy. You are the only one who have problems (this and related articles are your problems), I don't have any problems. I wasn't referring to the award giving body, Awit Awards, as unnotable but to the award itself, namely, the "People's Choice Favorite New Male Artist" award, which is determined by text votes and can be easily achieved by a "text brigade" made-up of cult droids. "People's Choice Favorite New Male Artist" is not a notable award. When you say, "...we're still open to discuss what other changes can be made." were you referring to your numerous sock puppets or just to yourself? If it's the latter then you should have used "I" instead of "we". Let me tell it to you straight, this is not and has never been a Filipino editors vs. editors of other nationalities issue, though you want it to appear that way to gather sympathy and allies. This is a minority religious sect, whose leadership are known as massive self-promoters and for being involved in all sorts of crimes and anomalies (all documented in reliable third-party published sources), attempting to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertisement. So what if Razon's show was nominated for the Philippine Star Awards? Mere nomination from the Philippine Star Awards is not notable, the Philippine Star Award itself doesn't appear to be notable, and so is the Anak TV Seal Awards. Who in the world have heard of that award? The Gold Record award from PARI is notable. Include that if you have an RS. The mention of the equally-unnotable and watched by ADD members only Good Morning Kuya by the MRT3 website belongs to the Good Morning Kuya article, not to this one. – Shannon Rose Talk 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Philippine Star Award itself doesn't appear to be notable, and so is the "Anak TV Seal Awards" - I cannot accept what you said. It is obvious that you jump to conclusions and immediately declare things that you don't know as un-notable. These two awards are notable! Almost every Philippine network has aspired to get one of those awards. Even the ADD rival network, NET 25 and many Iglesia ni Cristo shows get the award. How dare you say "Who in the world have heard of that award?", obviously your have no good faith and not a Filipino. I challenge you, where the hell did you come from? Obviously, you came from a religious cult that hates the ADD people and their leaders. (If you only know the truth...[Philippine Journalists try to avoid writing articles praising the cult co-leader, that is why there are very few RS can be found about this man.]) 180.191.48.7 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

Hi, I've protected the page for a week because there was a complaint of BLP violations. If you want to restore information, please read WP:BLP carefully, and make sure everything is sourced to a reliable, high-quality source. If in doubt about the material or the source, please do not restore it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 13:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced this to a stub again, because material was being added, including serious allegations, without sources or with sources that didn't fully support it. Please do not anything (nothing positive, neutral, or negative), unless it is clearly supported by a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for guidance. SlimVirgin talk contribs 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone here know what kind of publication the Sun.Star Pampanga is? The article is basing some serious and confusing claims on it. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the article back to a stub for the third time, because it can't consist only of the person allegedly being persona non grata somewhere. Please don't add anything to the article unless it's carefully sourced, and please observe NPOV as well as V, NOR, and BLP. SlimVirgin talk contribs 02:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from SV's talk page) Hi, SlimVirgin. Sun Star is a reputable media company that publishes regional newspapers in Bacolod, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro, Cebu, Davao, Dumaguete, General Santos, Iloilo, Manila, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Zamboanga. The website mirrors the printed version. However, I do agree with your reversion, because an article that has nothing but information on a person's persona non grata status in his hometown is a sight for sore eyes. I will try to add more content to the article in the near future. Thanks! – Shannon Rose Talk 22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from SV's talk page) Hi SlimVirgin, I've added both Daniel Razon's Broadcast Career and his alleged "Persona non Grata" status. Kindly click this for my revision and check if it is okay for you. Thanks a lot!IronBreww (chat) 04:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very confusing, to be honest. SlimVirgin talk contribs 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 112.204.241.24, 22 November 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}


112.204.241.24 (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Please make a new request and state what you would like to be changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014

[edit]

Bro. Daniel Razon’s sons names are Aaron and Joshua Jledda (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request. Additionally, depending on the ages of his children, we avoid unnecessary information about Minors. - Arjayay (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Daniel Razon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

why does this article have a discussion on "Members Church of God International" that has nothing to do with Daniel Razon?

Last edited at 14:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 12:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Daniel Razon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Razon&oldid=1205017004"