Talk:Manny Pacquiao

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Picture caption[edit]

A caption for one of the pictures of a young Pacquiao reads "16-year-old Pacquiao in 1996". I hate to state the obvious, but it is impossible for someone born in 1978 to be 16 in 1996.74.215.197.161 (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done – truncated the caption to just "Pacquiao in 1996". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Name, etc.[edit]

I have found his birth register, known as the exact extracts from birth certificates. It shows that his name name is "Emanuel" and not "Emmanuel". He was born in Brgy. Magsaysay, Kibawe at 7:45 AM. That's all. 103.14.62.156 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional note: His last name is written as "Paquiao" and not "Pacquiao". 103.14.62.156 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
His parents are listed as "Rosalio L. Paquiao", 21, born in Pinamungajan, Cebu, and "Nenita N. Mejia", 29, born in Inopacan, Leyte. 103.14.62.156 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Manny Pacquiao. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Manny Pacquiao. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Split proposed[edit]

The boxing related content has become substantial enough to create a split article. Mitchumch (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, since the article is massive and takes longer to load than any other on my watchlist. What would the split title be—"Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao"? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Mitchumch (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Mac Dreamstate If I split the article, then would you be willingly to create a short summary for this article and the new article? The summary can be identical for both. They'll eventually diverge over time. The reason I asked is you seem to be an active editor on this article and I'm not. I made the proposal when Pacquiao was heavily in the news after his boxing loss. I noticed the length of the section during that time. Mitchumch (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
If you mean a summary in prose rather than an edit summary, then no—I don't have it in me at this time to write up something for as significant an article as this. I only keep tabs on the boxing stats such as the record table and succession box; I might've tweaked the lead over the past year, but nothing from scratch. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Mac Dreamstate It only needs to be maximum two or three sentences. Given the attention Pacquiao receives, those sentence should grow naturally over time. Mitchumch (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes please, go ahead. STSC (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be left devoid of his boxing career. See point No. 6 of WP:CORRECTSPLIT. There should be a summary of his boxing career on this page. I think with a few alterations, the lead section of the boxing career article is a good start for a summary section on this article. Lizard (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is a trainwreck now. If you're going to split the article, you need to write a summary of appropriate length. Right now, this article is a disaster. HampsteadLord (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

Why the phrase "widely considered" in the lead section was changed to "considered by some"? Is "widely considered" a non-NPOV? Pacquiao is a global superstar so "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest fighters af all time" would be more appropriate to use right? Just asking. Pacphobia (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It's unlikely that anyone with even a shred of boxing knowledge would deny that Pacquiao is widely considered one of the all-time greats, but what the statement does need is plenty of sources to back it up. On its own, unsourced, it is NPOV by WP's guidelines. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It would also need reliable sources for the statement "considered by some...", if it's challenged. STSC (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it as per MOS guidelines. Clear attribution is required. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"Pacquiao is considered by many to be one of the greatest professional boxers of all time." removed.[edit]

As per WP:WEASEL I have removed this line from the article. We should not be adding unsupported attributions to articles. Either we say WHO considers him to be one of the greatest professional boxers of all time or we leave it out of the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have message the editor who is restoring this content, with a suggestion that he join this discussion - however he just blanked his talk page and reverted again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Naue7 Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I only restored widely once. Naue7 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You changed "some" to "many" and restored "widely" - I messaged you and requested that you join this discussion, rather than revert again - but it seems you would rather edit war than try to gain consensus. If you had bothered to actually read this page, you would see that we don't add unsupported attributions to articles. Or is there some reason you think we should be ignoring MOS in this case? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I didn't revert again? You changed it to "some" and I changed it to "many". How am I edit warring? There was a consensus for the phrase for at least a year but the article was recently split so sources were taken out. One of the sources was Reuters saying "Manny Pacquiao cemented his place in the pantheon of boxing greats". Naue7 (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

So, one source from Reuters equals "many" people? Also, if the source had been removed then it's an unsupported attribution that gets removed from the article. If you were so desperate to restore it, then you should also restore the source. The burden is on the editor adding or restoring content, to make sure that there are sources supporting that content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the history it is more than one source and not just in the lead. I used Reuters as an example as they are pretty reliable. I am not desperate to restore it and I have not added the phrase back since you deleted it and am confused as to why you are accusing me of this. Naue7 (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, if the phrase isn't in the article, then it's for the best of the article, so problem solved. Hopefully our next interaction will be a little smoother, as I'm sure we both just want to make good articles. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to say "Pacquiao is considered to be one of the boxing greats" according to the Reuters source. STSC (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think "was" considered is more accurate, seeing the age of those sources and the multiple recent losses. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Athletes are judged by the totality of their careers, not just by the most recent events. By your logic, Muhammad Ali must not be that good since he suffered a string of losses in the latest fights of his career. RetiredVet1946 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Then take your own advice and base your edits on his entire career, not on sources that were before a string on losses and convincing steroid allegations. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify - RetiredVet1946 has been indef blocked as a sock account. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've removed (again) the unsupported attribution from this article, as per Wikipedia guidelines. I've added two quotations with attribution, one from 2010 to reflect the high point of his career and one from 2017 to reflect his more recent progress and to introduce some balance. Naue7 has received a warning on his user talk page regarding his continued edit warring and would do well to read a few Wikipedia guidelines regarding MOS, Weasel Words, Words to Avoid and Unsupported Attribution Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420 There is nothing wrong with the phrase and you refer to WP:WEASEL when it states "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." Also if Pacquiao lost 10 fights in a row he will still be considered to be one of the greatest professional boxers of all time. Naue7 (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Why exactly did you remove my content regarding 2017? Are you of the opinion that only content that views Manny in a positive light should be in the lede? Also, could you point out exactly which source says that he consideration of him being "one of the greatest professional boxers of all time" is wide? I couldn't find mention of the claim being widely supported anywhere. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I also removed the content regarding 2010. I removed it because the lede is now cluttered with quotes and it was edited recently so it would be less cluttered. There were also no sources. I added a recent source with the word "widely" in it. Naue7 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to recap: is the issue here whether or not Pacquiao is one of the greatest of all time, or currently a lack of sources supporting the claim? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue. Naue7 (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The issues are - We should attribute any claims of greatness to the person saying it, rather than just making the claim. We should remove the word "widely" as that is obviously OR and clearly in breach of MOS guidelines. We should make it clear that those claims of greatness come from 2010 - before multiple losses and steroid accusations. We should also balance claims of greatness with claims of a downfall. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:WEASEL "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed." that's pretty clear. "Pacquiao is widely considered to be one of the greatest professional boxers of all time" is obviously an opinion, so it needs to be clearly attributed. Saying "widely considered" is about as ambiguous as it gets.
WP:WEASEL"The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." - so where in the article are these opinions in the lede attributed? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
From the looks of it, what's needed is a balance. Let's say.. four sources from around Pacquiao's peak in 2009–2012; four more sources from prior to the Horn fight; and four from after. That way we'll have a range of views from across the significantly different stages of his career. The task now is firstly to stop adding or removing whatever's in the lead right now; start gathering up all the relevant sources; and present them here. Les' do it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to add: the lead could then reflect how his legacy may have changed—depending on the amount of sources—after all the losses from 2012 onwards. Maybe something like "At the peak of his career from 2008 to 2011, Pacquiao was considered one of the greatest professional boxers of all time; however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status as an all-time great has been subject to debate." Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I actually changed the lede from "Pacquiao is widely considered to be one of the greatest professional boxers of all time" to "In 2010, according to Kevin Mitchell of The Guardian, "Manny Pacquiao, surely, has every right now to be considered among the top two or three greatest fighters of all time". While in 2017 Jorge Conejo of Now Boxing stated "his best days are long behind him", "Evidence of his decline showed drastically against young unbeaten Australian slugger Jeff Horn" supported with sources, with this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manny_Pacquiao&diff=prev&oldid=796660555 - unfortunately, User:Naue7 saw fit to revert back to the current unbalanced version. I have zero issues with stating that he was at one time considered to be one of the greatest, however things change and legacies change - just look at how much Jon Jones' legacy has changed over the last 48 hours. I like your suggestion for the lede, if there are no objections, I will modify the lede to reflect your suggestion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Spacecowboy420 That edit wasn't supported with any sources that's why it was removed as I said in the edit summary. Also the current source doesn't question his legacy it just says his best days are behind him and says how the Horn fight was a robbery. Naue7 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Another thing that's happening is content from this article is getting mixed and matched with the Boxing career one—at least whenever they show up on my watchlist. The consensus lead should be settled here first, with agreement from all editors involved (User:Naue7 needs to pitch in as well), then moved over to the sub-article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I made a bold edit and edited the Boxing career article, to reflect the changes on this article. Let's see what happens next. BRD has a habit of resolving issues. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

The recent reversion [1] instigated a number of serious violations of guidelines and policy. I'll break down each part:

  • "At the peak of his career until 2012, Pacquiao was considered one of the greatest professional boxers of all time". This was based on a source published in 2010, whereas the added content discusses events at least until 2012 (and beyond really, because to know someone reached a peak at a certain time, there needs to be time afterwards for a decline). The editor added a source to support claims that happened after the publication date. Needless to say, this addition clearly fails venerability.
  • "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate." Among other things, this uses this source [2]. What makes this a reliable source? From that website:[3]

NowBoxing.com is a boxing fans news blog and forum, where you can get the latest boxing news updates and share your thoughts on sport of boxing. We allow fans to get involved and have their opinions heard by giving them the opportunity voice their views through originally written articles.

This nowboxing is a website that anyone can contribute to; it appears to be a self-published group blog, and is clearly no way a reliable source. To use such a source to make claims about the reputation of a living person is a clear violation of WP:BLP.

  • Again regarding the above addition, this source is used: [4]. This is a sourced published in 2011, used to make claims about events happening in 2012-2017. Again, this is a violation of verifiability.
  • There is also the question of whether such a viewpoint is wp:undue, especially for the lead. I actually know this topic, and to me it clearly is. We should present a picture that gives a balanced assessment.
  • it deleted "In 2016, Pacquiao was ranked number 2 on ESPN's list of top pound-for-pound boxers of the past 25 years". The ESPN ranking is a list of P4P in the past 25 years. They are obviously a reliable source for the topic, and the publication is recent (2016). These are the kinds of sources we should be using to make claims about the 'greatness' of a boxer.
  • It deleted "He was named "Fighter of the Decade" for the 2000s by the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA), WBC, and WBO. He is also a three-time Ring magazine and BWAA Fighter of the Year, winning the award in 2006, 2008, and 2009; and the Best Fighter ESPY Award in 2009 and 2011." These are notable awards, awarded by respected organisations, and sourced below in the article. Why was this deleted?
  • To summarise, an editor has been repeatedly edit-warring to insert BLP violations, and also violations of verifiability. Editors have objected, but this behaviour keeps continuing. HampsteadLord (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The lede needed balance and it was discussed. Sock accounts were blocked and an agreement was made. That's what is known as consensus. We gain that by discussion. Which is actually what I suggested in the message that I put on your talk page regarding the sock accounts "Hi, nothing to do with the Manny article - (which I'm sure will get fixed with a little discussion.)" unfortunately, you just decided to delete it. Either way, without wasting time discussing points that have already been covered adequately, the lede needs balance. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Either way, please modify your attitude and quit whining so much when you don't get your own way. Your content is back on there, I didn't remove it. Actually, I used a little more content from the source you provided - you're welcome. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Due to how contentious this issue has become—on both sides—I'm not all that comfortable with emphasising Pacquiao's decline right off the bat in the lead section, per WP:UNDUE, as if to say "See? See? He's not all that great!" The balance keeps shifting back and forth with each edit, with neither being sufficient in terms of genuine WP:RS. Obviously there is a lot to be said about his legacy and how it stands before and after his losses since 2012, but where it should be expanded upon in detail is not in the lead, but in a section titled Legacy, similar to the articles for Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe. Also, this needs way more editors on board for a consensus to be called—we're not even close yet. Furthermore, there's now the issue of WP:PA arising on both sides. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to deal with undue weight and add balance to the article. I consider his recent lack of form (and PED claims) to be notable enough for the lede. Perhaps a legacy section would be a better idea, as you said. However, I think that "He is the only eight-division world champion in the history of boxing" should remain in the lede (and only that) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Due to how contentious this issue has become—on both sides—I'm not all that comfortable with emphasising Pacquiao's decline right off the bat in the lead section, per WP:UNDUE, as if to say "See? See? He's not all that great!" The balance keeps shifting back and forth with each edit, with neither being sufficient in terms of genuine WP:RS. Obviously there is a lot to be said about his legacy and how it stands before and after his losses since 2012, but where it should be expanded upon in detail is not in the lead, but in a section titled Legacy, similar to the articles for Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe. Also, this needs way more editors on board for a consensus to be called—we're not even close yet. Furthermore, there's now the issue of WP:PA arising on both sides. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to deal with undue weight and add balance to the article. I consider his recent lack of form (and PED claims) to be notable enough for the lede. Perhaps a legacy section would be a better idea, as you said. However, I think that "He is the only eight-division world champion in the history of boxing" should remain in the lede (and only that) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
This is in need of WP:DRN involvement, or maybe even WP:EWN. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I will comment more once this sock IP has become bored. There is little point in me making points that are going to be deleted as soon as I make them. But yeah, I'm open to whatever resolves this the easiest. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to address the points I have raised, instead of talking about side issues (sockpuppets). Your edits were serious violations of policy, including BLP and V, and you edit-warred numerous times to keep inserting them. HampsteadLord (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the recently added Steroid allegations section I think it should be removed per WP:BLP as no criminal or sporting body has ever accused him of this and Pacquiao settled a lawsuit with Mayweather regarding these claims and as the section says "there is no definitive proof on this subject, only speculation" and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Naue7 (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

HampsteadLord I'm glad you're not concerned about the "side issues" of sock accounts/scck IPs making disruptive edits and deleting comments from this talk page, making meaningful discussion impossible. I guess you showed your lack of concern when you decided to message the sock IP to agree with them on their harassment of me and delete my comments warning you about the sock IP with a "not needed" edit summary. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HampsteadLord&diff=prev&oldid=798158684
Perhaps if you changed your attitude a little from comments like "What is your explanation?" to something a little more polite, then we could have a more productive discussion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Naue7 there are a lot of reliable sources regarding the PED accusations. Of course we shouldn't state that he took PEDs, we don't know that for sure. However, to state that he has been dogged by the accusations is certainly notable. There is a lot of content regarding this issue later in the article, so a few lines on it in the lede is acceptable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say the apparent socks wasn't a concern, so you made this up. The sock is obviously disrupting proceedings here. If you want to discuss the sock, create a separate thread on this page instead of polluting it on this section. Now back to the content issues: you need to address the substance of your edits I pointed to above, which are in serious violation of BLP and V. HampsteadLord (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought your comment "You need to address the points I have raised, instead of talking about side issues (sockpuppets).", your edit on the talk page of the sock IP "Yep, that's abundantly clear." in response to them trolling me, and your edit summary in response to me explaining that it was a sock IP stating "not needed" made it pretty clear that you were not overly concerned with the sock IPs.
Oh, I've already addressed those points. Feel free to read this talk page. If you have any issues with the current state of the article, feel free to explain your concerns here. Thanks and have a great day, buddy. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
You are continuing to talk about the IP when that is no longer relevant. You haven't addressed those edits at all, even when I have shown why they are in violation of policy. If you have, you will be able to point out which edits do so. However, you kept inserting policy-violating material, which other editors are reverting. HampsteadLord (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the PED allegations are relevant to his career and need mentioning in a later section (Legacy, etc.), they are extremely contentious for the lead, especially considering they are only that—allegations; Florence Griffith Joyner being an example where similar allegations are avoided in the lead. I'm no expert on how WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE is handled in lead sections, but the inclusion of unsubstantiated allegations right off the bat—from motormouth Malignaggi of all people—does bother me significantly. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've brought this incident to ANI: [5] HampsteadLord (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the allegations from the lead. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
ANI seems to be a waste of time for a content dispute. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, this phrase "considered one of the best, or regarded as one of the best or greatest" is widely used here in Wikipedia mostly in sports articles like boxing. As long as it has a reliable source to back it up it's acceptable in Wikipedia. Take a look at Miguel Cotto page for example. The page is even a "Good article" and you can see that phrase on its lead. A page to be considered a "good article" has to pass or meet the strict criteria so do you think the Miguel Cotto page was just mistakenly tagged as a good article? Pacphobia (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
One more thing, I dont need to seek your approval before I edit wikipedia. I can edit articles anytime I want. Wikipedia:PLEASEDISCUSS Pacphobia (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps your "I can edit articles anytime I want" attitude towards criticism, is why you got blocked from editing, for edit warring and personal attacks on this article in the past. Good luck with that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Everytime I edit on this article's lead you put Edit War tag on my talk page as if you are forbidding me not to perform any edits there. You are trying your best to provide a source for your edits on "steroids allegations" which in fact a WP:BLP violation according to User:Collect but when I made an edit provided with reliable sources you reverted it. I wonder why. Pacphobia (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I put the tag as a helpful reminder not to edit war and specifically not to edit war on this article, because you've already been blocked for your actions on this article, and I don't want to see someone blocked over a simple content dispute. User:Collect was concerned with content being given the voice of wikipedia - I agree with him, which is why I removed the first line of that section, after restoring the section. You are misrepresenting your sources. 1. They don't all discuss pound for pound. 2. We shouldn't use words like "often" 3. They are unattributed. 4. We are far better off saying "in (date) (who) stated that Pacquiao was the best" - which is exactly what the content you are removing stated. I suggest you look at the section regarding competence for examples of good ledes. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you're the one who made this edits in the lead section:

  • "Former two-weight world champion Paulie Malignaggi has consistently expressed his opinion that Pacquaio has used PEDs, noting that Pacquiao's run of dominant performances and knockouts stopped after Floyd Mayweather Jr accused Pacquaio of using PEDs." - WP:BLP violation
  • "While in 2017 Jorge Conejo of Now Boxing stated "his best days are long behind him", "Evidence of his decline showed drastically against young unbeaten Australian slugger Jeff Horn". - WP:BLP violation
  • "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate". - WP:BLP violation

Is that what you call a good examples of ledes? Really? Do you even understand what "examples of good ledes" means? Pacphobia (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Cotto article being listed as a GA, it must be noted that it received the listing in 2007—the article has changed massively since then. That easily warrants a re-assessment which may get it downgraded, as currently there's no quality control on it (grammar issues, refs, etc.), besides the record table and succession box which are easy to maintain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Can involved editors on this article comment on the ANI thread I created? [[6]] Otherwise, I think his talk page will continue to get bigger and bigger, and the article will not be getting improved. Bizarrely, folks on that page haven't responded. HampsteadLord (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think many consider it an ANI worthy topic. Dispute resolution? Maybe. Edit Warring? Maybe. BLP? possibly.

allegations[edit]

Rarely belong in a BLP, and the misuse of Wikipedia's voice to present them is beyond the pale. If they are important, they must be presented per WP:NPOV, and not use Wikipedia's voice for the allegations made. Wikipedia is not a tabloid celebrity gossip site. Collect (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There is zero proof whatsoever that Pacquiao has ever used performance-enhancing drugs. It is important to realize that Pacquiao is a high-profile figure, so naturally there will be people who are desperate for media attention who will gossip and speculate about him. "Special drinks", Teddy Atlas' eyes, and questionable emails are not evidence of steroid use -- they are nothing more than rumors. The allegations are baseless and do not belong on this article. Songisjust (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Songisjust is a sock account. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There are a variety of problems with the section but the opinions generally seem to be attributed. Can you please be specific about which ones you are concerned with?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
From a distance, I fail to understand why the contentious material cannot first be discussed at length here, rather than a handful of editors impulsively restoring it all the time. Isn't that the whole point of WP, to first gain consensus on disputed content, and only then add it back to the article?—not the other way around. I have no "horse in this race" (neither a Pacquiao fan nor interested in the allegations), but having done routine maintenance on the article over the past year, the conduct of a few editors is getting very annoying. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Competence is required[edit]

"As of May 2017, Cotto is ranked as the world's third best light middleweight by The Ring magazine,[1] and fourth by BoxRec.[2] In 2007 and 2009 he reached a peak pound for pound ranking of seventh by The Ring."

"In 1998, the Boxing Writers Association of America named Mosley as their Fighter of the Year.[5] He was also given the same honor by the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 2000. In 2000 and 2001 he was named the world's best active boxer, pound for pound, by The Ring.[6]"

Mayweather is a two-time winner of The Ring magazine's Fighter of the Year award (1998 and 2007), a three-time winner of the Boxing Writers Association of America Fighter of the Year award (2007, 2013, and 2015), and a six-time winner of the Best Fighter ESPY Award (2007–2010, 2012–2014).[2][3] In 2016, Mayweather was ranked by ESPN as the greatest boxer, pound for pound, of the last 25 years.[4] In the same year, he peaked as BoxRec's number one fighter of all time, pound for pound, as well as the greatest welterweight of all time.[5][6] Many sporting news and boxing websites, including The Ring, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, BoxRec, Fox Sports, and Yahoo! Sports, ranked Mayweather as the best pound for pound boxer in the world twice in a span of ten years.[7][8][9][10][11][12]"

"As of May 2017, Álvarez is ranked as the world's best active boxer, pound for pound, by BoxRec;[2] and eighth by the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board (TBRB) and The Ring.[3] He is also ranked as the world's best light middleweight by the TBRB[4] and BoxRec,[5] as well as ranked the best middleweight by The Ring and second by the TBRB."

spot the difference between the above (attributed claims) and below (unattributed claims)

"Often considered as one of the best pound for pound fighters of his generation,[2][3][4][5]"

If you can't understand the difference, I think there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Widely used in Wikipedia[edit]

(Boxing)

  • He is widely regarded as one of the most significant and celebrated sports figures of the 20th century
  • Ali is regarded as one of the leading heavyweight boxers of the 20th century - -Muhammad Ali
  • Frequently cited as one of the greatest boxers of all time - Sugar Ray Robinson
  • Mike Tyson is considered one of the best heavyweights of all time - Mike Tyson
  • He is regarded by many as one of the greatest heavyweight boxers of all time - Lennox Lewis
  • Klitschko is considered to be one of the greatest heavyweight champions of all time- Wladimir Klitschko
  • Widely considered one of the greatest boxers of the modern era - Bernard Hopkins
  • Often regarded as one of the greatest boxers of all time - Sugar Ray Leoanard
  • Widely regarded as not only one of the best middleweights in history but also one of the greatest boxers of all time- Carlos Monzon
  • He is often regarded as one of the hardest-punching light welterweights in the division's history - Kostya Tzyu
  • He is considered by acclamation as the greatest Mexican boxer of all time - Julio Cesar Chavez
  • Ortiz is considered among the best Puerto Rican boxers of time - Carlos Ortiz
  • Marquez is considered to be one of the greatest Mexican boxers of all time - Juan Manuel Marquez
  • Cited as one of the greatest boxers of his era - Alexis Arguello
  • Considered as one of the greatest junior lightweight champions in history - Gabriel "Flash" Elorde
  • Widely considered to be one of the greatest amateur boxers of all time - Guillermo Rigondeaux

(Basketball)

  • Rusell is widely considered one of the best players in NBA history - William Felton Russell
  • He is regarded as one of the best - Reginald Philip "Reggie" Freeman
  • Widely considered one of the greatest and most dominant players in NBA history - Wilt Chamberlain
  • Widely considered one of the greatest in NBA history - David Robinson
  • Regarded as one of the best point guards of all time - John Stockton ...and the list goes on.

You're right Spacecowboy420. I think those editors who made the edits I listed have a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Pacphobia (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me, thank you. Also, thank you for the above list - I will fix those articles, when I get time.
To be honest, those articles are shit. Well, at least those quotes are. It's so easy to improve those articles. You say "who" said "what" rather than "lots of people said..."
"Mike Tyson is considered one of the best heavyweights of all time" becomes "Mike Tyson was ranked as the 11th best heavyweight of all time by the Telegraph"
I'm not sure of those editors are suffering from WP:COMPETENCE issues or not, I said that someone who couldn't understand the difference between attributed and unattributed claims suffers from WP:COMPETENCE issues. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard[edit]

User:Collect has decided to remove all the content on PED allegations. (despite it being based on reliable/verifiable sources and having consensus) - that's kinda okay, because that's how BRD works. However, he also contributed to a report on the BLP noticeboard but didn't think it would be a good idea to inform anyone else involved, so that we could contribute towards the discussion on that noticeboard, which doesn't really seem like the most good faith effort to gain consensus. So, here is the link Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Manny_Pacquiao in case anyone here wishes to contribute. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that contentious material which has been removed from any BLP REQUIRES a positive consensus for re-insertion as a bare minimum. Name-calling and attacks on editors do not constitute seeking a consensus. By the way, I did not create the BLP/N report, and implying that it is wrong to post on an existing report without re-notifying every editor is not only not required, it would be considered a violation of WP:CANVASS in the first place. Collect (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, do you have any idea what WP:CANVASS is about? If you try to get a discussion to go your way by informing your buddies about it, then you are in breach of WP:CANVASS.
WP:CANVASS specifically states "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" and then lists "The talk page of one or more directly related articles." as one of the places that would not be considered to be canvassing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I only have a bit over 45,000 edits now. Anytime a person who is not the originator of a new discussion on a noticeboard then notifies any group of editors, it is quite likely to be a violation of WP:CANVASS. The person you ought to have asked as the person who started the discussion in this case. I had no obligation when I posted on a proper noticeboard in an already existing section to then notify any editor or editors that I had done so. Clearer? Collect (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

"* On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

    • Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

etc.."

so, yeah - it's really clear that you should have informed people and no, it wouldn't have been canvassing. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

suggestion:[edit]

Because of a fear of blood drainage,[92][93] especially close to a bout, the steroid allegation began when Pacquiao turned down a random blood test arrangement when in negotiations for the Mayweather bout in 2010.[94] The allegations by Mayweather ended in a lawsuit from Pacquiao that was settled with compensation by Mayweather out of court.[95]

to:

Pacquiao declined a random blood test arrangement when in negotiations for the Mayweather bout in 2010.[94] Mayweather alleged that this was likely due to steroid use, which led to a lawsuit by Pacquiao. That lawsuit resulted in compensation by Mayweather out of court.[95]

"Blood drainage" is used quite weirdly in the current version as part of an adverbial prepositional phrase, is undefined, and adds nothing to the simple statement of fact.

Opinions? Collect (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

blood extraction? needles? blood tests? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I like the change. Prose is better and it's much more straightforward. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Does it state within the sources Pacquiao's supposed fear of needles? That should be mentioned as the reason for why he declined the test, otherwise the reader may be left wondering. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The term "blood drainage" seems wonderfully inapt and quite useless. Mayweather appears to have made an accusation and the lawsuit was about that allegation. And Mayweather paid. That is all that really belongs in a BLP where the net result was that it was Mayweather who ended up with problems. Collect (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I recall, I've read both that he's scared of needles and that he feels weakened after having blood taken. The feeling weak excuse was the reason that I saw the most. I will see if there is a nice source.
To be fair, there have been other notable public figures stating that Manny was a cheat, not just Mayweather - there certainly doesn't need to be any OR regarding why it's plausible or not that he is a cheat - however, when someone famous makes a pretty unambiguous statement, we certainly can quote or paraphrase them. (direct/attributed quotes would be ideal)Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP issues[edit]

Seeing that both ANI and the BLP noticeboard have shown NO major concerns about the controversy section, most of the editors who were removing it have been confirmed as sock accounts, and therefore indef blocked and that the controversy section has been present for a long time (therefore being the stable version, supported by consensus) we should restore the controversy section as soon as the article is no longer protected. Of course discussions should still take place regarding how to improve it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact is that WP:BLP does not say "if only a few people raise the concerns, then the concerns do not exist." The concerns were raised. Your recourse is to have an RfC to find a strong consensus for inclusion of the removed material, not to state "the opposition is small, therefore the concerns are irrelevant." Start the RfC. And I suggest that I am not a sock of anyone at all, and that sort of claim is a wonderful example of bad faith. Simple. Collect (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I would support an RfC for the Controversy section, but a separate one may be needed for the "greatest of all time" issue in the lead section, which began all this hysteria. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm just hoping the "greatest of all time" drama has calmed down. Although it wasn't what I initially thought was best, the current content in the lede is good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Collect 1st point. One the BLP noticeboard, let's list who raised concerns. Well, firstly you did. And also User:Songisjust raised concerns - however they are an indef blocked sock, so their opinion is worth nothing. Then you had - SaskatchewanSenator , who stated "the opinions generally seem to be attributed" and asked you "Can you please be specific about the material presented in Wikipedia's voice that you are concerned with" - which you failed to do and of course you had me, I was waiting for your "sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice" which you never provided information on. So in short, apart from you and an indef blocked sock, no one on the BLP noticeboard thought there was any BLP issue, and from that we can come to the conclusion that there are zero BLP issues with that article and proceed with reverting it back to the stable previous version.

2nd point. Who said you were a sock? Did they file an SPI? I will be happy to go to your SPI and state that while I consider you to be a highly disruptive editor with a track record of TEN BLOCKS !!!! I don't think you're a sock puppet. Don't worry bro, I've got your back on this one, buddy. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


The concern was raised at WP:BLPN by another person. Note I did not start that section, nor did I start the report at WP:ANI. Naue7 opened that section. HampsteadLord was also involved in those discussions. As was Eggishorn Collect (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

STSC and I also removed the potentially libellous material and gave explanantions. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard has not confirmed that any of the content was a BLP issue. Hillbillyholiday please confirm why you think the content removed was libelous. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You might want to read this discussion as well. --John (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Where is that RfC, hmm? Enough with the sock accusations and re-addition of contentious content until we have one started. This is basic stuff on WP. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Start an RFC then? Comments like "an editor who refuses to even start an RfC" and "Where is that RfC, hmm?" are kinda funny, when you consider that anyone can start an RFC. You want one? Start one. I personally, see it as a waste of time as when it was posted on ANI and on BLP noticeboard, no one seemed to think it's a BLP issue. Well no one apart from some indef blocked socks, a disruptive editor with 10+ blocks and an editor currently on a one month block based on his actions on this article.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I started the discussion on the noticeboard and am none of the above. Naue7 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
On which noticeboard, Naue7 ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420 The Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Naue7 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Bible Quote[edit]

I removed the rather slanted "bible" section as being violative of WP:BLP and have been reverted by a new editor here. Again, when such a section is removed, WP:CONSENSUS requires a positive consensus for such "material". Anyone is free to start the RfC, but this iterated violation of Wikipedia policy is harmful to Wikipedia itself. Collect (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it's all relevant and cited. You shouldn't remove it just because you don't like it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the section the edit summary states "noting this is what was initially misascribed to the person" but when you actually read the source it says how the quote was once attributed to him before and the story was retracted but this was another instance. Many reliable sources have reported on this as fact.[7][8][9] Naue7 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, it's well supported. Thanks for finding those other sources.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems well-sourced Collect There are many similar "slanted" sections in BLPs which are discussed and retained. I see no reason to do an RfC unless you can bring up more specific policy/BLP issues. Jim1138 (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

User Collect is right in seeking consensus. "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion - The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" per WP:ONUS. - STSC (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems only fair that we follow Wikipedia guidelines and I guess no matter if WP:ONUS and other policies supports inclusion or removal of content, we have to abide by them. Although the bible section is correctly sourced, we have to decided if we are giving undue weight to one aspect of the article. As per WP:UNDUE and to quote Jimbo Wales:

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

So, that seems very clear. If it is a majority or significant minority, we should be able to provide sources and then it is suitable for inclusion in the article. If we can't find those sources, then it is not suitable for inclusion. I will look for some sources and my success or failure should make this easy to deal with. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - the material is of WP:UNDUE weight, and the fact that an editor has engaged in edit war for its inclusion rather that follow the strictures of an RfC, makes me more against its inclusion than ever. Collect (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, according to your opinion - it's undue weight. However, according to the guidelines set up by Jimbo Wales - it isn't undue weight.
Also, we decide if content should be included on an article, based on the merits of the content, not based on the merits of the editor who adds it or their previous edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Collect as per WP:UNDUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" - what part of that makes this content unsuitable for the article? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Have you managed all this time to never notice how RfCs work? Learn, please. Collect (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

La Times, Ny Daily, BBC, FoxSports, The Guardian, Rolling Stone. I guess those sources are reliable enough and plentiful enough to make the content suitable for inclusion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Include It's relevant (especially for a senator, not only a boxer), well-sourced and nowhere near UNDUE. I'm also deeply unimpressed with the tag-team behaviour going on here to get SpaceCowboy blocked. This is not a BLP issue that might warrant such a reaction, it's far too well sourced for that. At most it's a minor question of UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude Wikipedia is not a tabloid. There's nothing encyclopedic about talking about what someone uploaded to instagram and then deleted. It does not add anything to the main point, already well conveyed, about Pacquiao's views on LGBT issues. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Neither is the Guardian a tabloid. Is it now OK to call for the murder of some people, provided that it's only on Instagram? Or if you delete it quickly afterwards? How is that a "tabloid" matter? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Take your issue up at the article about the Bible then. And please don't throw loaded questions at me. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Exclude As we could also then state that every single fundamentalist who believed in inerrancy of the Bible has that position, and put it in their BLPs. And that every Orthodox Jew prays "Lord, I thank thee that I was not born a woman.” or similar material which is not fair to the subject of a BLP. The ascription of a Bible quote as though it were the specific literal belief peculiar to that person and stated as such by that person is violative of the principle of "do no harm" stated by Wikipedia. [10] It is not a call for the murder of some people and thus using it as such is violative of WP:BLP entirely. Collect (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Weak straw man argument.
This isn't someone who just happens to believe such a position, or even an internet nobody shouting into a bucket. This is someone with international prominence, putting forward such a view to a wide audience. Then retracting it, then doing it again. They did it in such a way that media around the world commented upon it. So that even Nike reacted to it, by withdrawing their promotional contract.
This is both sourced, and significant. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
His views about LGBT issues are already in the article. The Bible quote thing apparently happened after Nike dropped him. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
"The thing" is about what happened both before and after the Nike drop.
Why are his LGBT views in the article at all if it's a blockable BLP offence (see: Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs)) to even mention them? If we cover this at all, and we ought to, then we ought to cover it fully (including the contested addition here), as is supported by multiple international sources. The piece that's unsourced at present is, "Pacquiao is openly supportive of LGBT activism", which is just as much under BLP as anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI, "administrators can impose sanctions for edits... that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies". - STSC (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The text that was removed did not say that Mr. Pacquiao called for the murder of some people. It said that he posted some Bible verses.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Manny had deleted whatever comment on his instagram account, that's the end of the matter. The trivial incident has no encyclopedic value at all. STSC (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Include All of these reliable sources (and I'll add one more [7]) from the USA, UK and the Philippines thought that Mr. Pacquiao posting the bible verses was significant enough to write articles on it and that it contributes to understanding his opinions on homosexuality. I agree with the sources.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Obviously relevant and notable for a major public figure to make such statements. Deleting something from Instagram, doesn't make it never have happened. I'm a little surprised that people consider a senator stating that gays should be put to death, to be a trivial matter. Obviously, it isn't trivial. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Manny did not state that gays should be put to death. The fuss about something deleted in a social media is absolutely trivial. STSC (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, he did.
He literally posted the following, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." claiming Biblical authority behind it. It doesn't matter whether he used his own words or quoted the Bible, he posted, literally, "They are to be put to death" This is clear, this is sourced. Why are we blocking editors for including it in this article? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

STSC "Manny did not state that gays should be put to death. The fuss about something deleted in a social media is absolutely trivial." - I'm confused. He didn't post it, but he deleted it anyway (despite not having posted it?). And his social media post was trivial anyway. (even though he didn't post anything?) - but on a more serious note (as I have previously stated) to have a world famous sportsman, celebrity and senator stating that gays should be put to death, on public media is not a trivial matter. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That would seem to be the legal fallacy of 'riding two horses'. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
He only posted a quote from the Bible, he didn't say those words. He has since deleted it. This trivial incident on a social media has no encyclopedic value, there's no need to make a meal out of it. STSC (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you think advocating murder is "trivial".
It was not seen as a trivial incident internationally, as evidenced by international press reporting it thus. That is our standard for significance on WP, thus we should see it as significant too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Our standard here is WP:NOTNEWS. And to describe the Holy Bible quote as "advocating murder" is just being hysterical. STSC (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

RfC: Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There are a number of issues here. There is clear consensus that "the speculation regarding Pacquiao's lack of stoppages since 2009, and the 'juicy' quotes from Roach, Atlas and Malignaggi, absolutely must go"Text largely from Mac Dreamstate. The !vote is somewhat split on the issue of covering the Olympic-style drug-testing proposal, the refusal, the accusations by Mayweather Sr. and the like. No clear reasons were given for excluding that material--that the lawsuit happened is not gossip. I can find no reason to exclude those issues as long as they are A) well-sourced to highly reliable sources (which appears to be trivial) and B) there is no reasonable reading of the text would lead one to believe that we are claiming or even implying he has in fact used performance-enhancing drugs. Hobit (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the steroid allegations paragraph be included, excluded, or reworded?Nihlus (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Since the edit warring is getting out of hand, the discussions at BLPN and ANI have not gotten anywhere, and protection has not worked, I am opening this RfC to establish community consensus on the controversies regarding Manny Pacquiao one at a time. The issue is whether or not this topic should be covered at all, so please make your decisions based on the entirety of the content below. If consensus is to reword, further discussion will take place after the RfC is closed.

Previous discussions
Steroid allegations

Because of a fear of blood drainage[1][2], especially close to a bout, this allegation began when he turned down a random blood and urine drug test in 2010 when in negotiations for a Mayweather bout.[3] Allegations by Mayweather ended in a lawsuit from Pacquiao that was settled with penalties by Mayweather out of court.[4] In spite of multiple knockdowns and near stoppages, since the allegations Pacquiao has yet to score a knockout inside the ring.[5] Pacquiao's trainer Freddie Roach has had suspicion of Pacquiao's former strength and conditioning coach Alex Ariza. Roach stated that Ariza had been giving Pacquiao "special drinks" without his permission. Roach also stated "One of the reasons I don't work with him [Ariza] anymore is he's a little shady. He used to give Manny a drink before workouts, and I asked him what was in the drink and he would never tell me. I told him I need to know what was in the drinks because you're giving it to my fighter."[6] Well respected boxing aficionado Teddy Atlas has been of the belief that Pacquiao has been on steroids in the past based on what he [Atlas] sees with his eyes. saying the power is the last thing to go in a fighter, and Manny doesn't have his anymore. Atlas also mentioned on ESPN according to some sources he was told on[7] during negotiations between a fight between Mayweather and Pacquiao on the topic of the drug test refusal that the Pacquiao camp sent emails to the Mayweather camp asking "What would the penalty be if our guy tested positive?" the second email said "If he did test positive could we keep this a secret for the benefit of boxing?"[8][9] Other boxers such as Paulie Malignaggi and Bernard Hopkins have also been outspoken on this topic.[10][11]

References

Survey[edit]

(Choose include, exclude, or reword below.)

  • Exclude: As I said at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "Steroid allegations are a very serious claim and Pacquiao has already settled a lawsuit with Floyd Mayweather regarding these claims and should definitely be removed per WP:BLP as no criminal or sporting body has ever accused him of this and as the section says "there is no definitive proof on this subject, only speculation" and WP:NOTGOSSIP." Naue7 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword: Pacquiao's refusal of testing in 2010, the original allegations by Mayweather, and the resulting lawsuit were all an overwhelming part of why the biggest fight in history didn't take place for five years—it absolutely should be mentioned. However, the subsequent speculation regarding Pacquiao's lack of stoppages since 2009, and the "juicy" quotes from Roach, Atlas and Malignaggi, absolutely must go—they fall flagrantly foul of WP:NOTRUMOR and WP:UNDUE. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
What aspect of WP:NOTRUMOR are you thinking of?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh I actually meant WP:NOTGOSSIP, specifically point #3. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: If there is to be a Controversy section regarding PEDs and not the religious stuff, it should go into the Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao article, and not this BLP one. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude as being unproven claims by some who gain by defaming the living person. The charges are, in fact, criminal in nature, and only a strong positive consensus would be valid to include them. Collect (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword per Mac Dreamstate. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword. It's sufficient to say Mayweather wanted Olympic-type drug-testing, and Pacquiao declined while giving whatever reasons. That's it. You can thus avoid gossip, rumors, legalities and innuendo. Include lots of footnotes so readers can get more info if they want. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword and drastically reduce - the English is not readily understandable and too much gossip at the end. Suggest decommatize to start more clearly "Steroid allegations began when he turned down a drug test during 2010 negotiations for a Mayweather bout citing concerns about blood drainage close to a bout." And end it after a line about the lawsuit settlement -- everything else is WP:SYNTH innuendo rather than reporting on a significant BLP event in his life. Markbassett (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The content of "steroid allegations" is poorly sourced; sources such as Bleacher Report (it is a blog) and YouTube are quite unacceptable. STSC (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword (Summoned by bot) per Mac Dreamstrate. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword: As Mac Dreamstate explained, this issue delayed the most lucrative boxing match ever, for five years. It is essential to explain why that happened--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude as this is incredibly poorly sourced and undue. As an aside this article is terrible for a BLP. It has virtually nothing on his boxing career and we should not have large dedicated controversy sections like this. I have tagged it as undue. AIRcorn (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword Summoned by a bot, I agree with mac Dreamstrate's rational - it is a notable enough topic to keep, with a rewrite. Comatmebro (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword it certainly belongs in this article as it is highly notable. Rewording in order to make the more picky editors happy, shouldn't be an issue. Oh, sorry for the late reply, I was suffering from an undeserved and incorrect block. :) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Summoned by bot. The content is WP:UNDUE, poorly sourced, and purely speculation. If it were to be included, additional concrete reliable sources would need to be provided confirming criminal charges. Meatsgains (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Response to Meatsgains - using steroids is not illegal, so why would confirmation of criminal charges be relevant? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly my point... I suppose I should have said "reliable sources would need to be provided confirming any criminal charges. Meatsgains (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay - got it. So are you suggesting that all potentially negative content on all articles should be removed unless they result in criminal charges? Should we remove every single civil case and PED case from Wikipedia, as they don't result in criminal charges? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Meatsgains, can I assume that your lack of a response to my last comment, means that you agree with me? This discussion is taking far too much time and prompt responses would help to speed things up a little. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I never said anything remotely close to "all potentially negative content on all articles should be removed unless they result in criminal charges". Come on now... And no, I don't agree with you. It's only been four days since my last response. Meatsgains (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Then what are you suggesting, considering that you based your stance on this article on "reliable sources would need to be provided confirming any criminal charges." for something that does not result in criminal charges, and that the content passes all notability, neutrality and reliability requirements? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Reword - It's obviously notable and as such should be in the article however as per above it does need rewriting. –Davey2010Talk 14:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course this isn't a vote - but it would seem that there is consensus towards including the claims of PED usage, but only if they are reworded. Perhaps we should be making a draft reworded version now. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Note Participants in this discussion are not allowed to claim a close to the discussion. In fact, the claimed "consensus" is quite far from the clear consensus required under WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but your participation here is just disrupting the entire process. You have an overwhelming majority of participants in the survey stating that the content should remain in a reworded form. The sensible step would be to do exactly that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Huh? I suggest that your iterated insistence that a handful of SPA accounts make policies irrelevant is not airborne by a few miles. Collect (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
9 (reword) vs 5 (exclude) is not overwhelming. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Clear majority? Overwhelming majority? it all adds up to the same thing. There was a survey, people gave their opinions. The results are obvious. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, 9 vs 5 would be "no consensus" to include and reword. STSC (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Considering that it was originally in the article, it would be "no consensus" to remove. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Shall I say this again: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" per WP:ONUS. STSC (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

I just want to repeat the advise at the top of this talk page:-

"This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) policy. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article, especially if potentially libellous."

STSC (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I must admit that in the two seconds it takes me to scroll down, I often forget such things. BTW - advice. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

We have a idea where people stand on the issues. Let's try to build some consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

A few editors mentioned concerns about the sources. Like the wording of the section, all of the sources and/or citations have problems and should be improved. If people are willing to put in the effort, I think this can be accomplished. Is anyone concerned that there is anything in the proposed section that is not verifiable?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Verifiable as fact? - yes, there are problems. Usable per WP:WEIGHT, yes, there are problems. Sorry but you would need much better sourcing and reasoning to re-add the stuff removed. Collect (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
It would be easier to build some consensus if we restrict this subsection to issues with the sources. WP:WEIGHT is an NPOV issue and should be discussed, but in another section. Can you please identify the things you think are not verifiable?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tag removed[edit]

I removed a tag that stated this article wasn't focused on Pacquiao's boxing career. I assume the editor who placed that tag, wasn't aware that there is another article focused on his boxing career. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I was aware. Unfortunately that is not how Wikipedia works. This is an overview article for his life and career as a whole and as such should give due weight to all aspects of it. A major part of that career is his boxing. Having three paragraphs (one a long quote) for this part of his career while having multiple paragraphs and lists for his acting, political and basketball aspects (not to mention the stand alone controversy section) does not come close to giving the correct weight. If anything the wrong sections were WP:split off. If there was ever an article that warranted an Undue tag this is it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree 100% , but then again, I don't see it as a major issue. If it promotes discussion and consensus then it's all good. Perhaps the Arnold Schwarzenegger article is a good example of how to move ahead with this article? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It would not be a bad place to start. Arnie suffers a bit from WP:Recentism, but that is pretty common here. Would definitely be an improvement. AIRcorn (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Aircorn. One option would be to undo the split and, if the article is too long, split the acting, political and basketball sections.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)