Talk:Manny Pacquiao

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.

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the person" but when you actually read the source it says how the quote was once attributed to him before and the story was retracted but this was another instance.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. 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. 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)

• Include as these remarks has significance in proportion to Pacquiao's religious views, to which he's also well-known. Slightlymad 10:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include, per rationales of User:Andy Dingley and User:Slightlymad. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:11, 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)