Talk:Manny Pacquiao

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Songisjust is a sock account. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  allegations 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Competence is required 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: You might want to read this discussion as well. --John (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  I started the discussion on the noticeboard and am none of the above. Naue7 (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  On which noticeboard, Naue7 ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Spacecowboy420 The Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Naue7 (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP issues 

message: Should the steroid allegations paragraph be included, excluded, or reworded? – Nihlus (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What aspect of WP:NOTRUMOR are you thinking of?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I actually meant WP:NOTGOSSIP, specifically point #3. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 9 (reword) vs 5 (exclude) is not overwhelming. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, 9 vs 5 would be "no consensus" to include and reword. STSC (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that it was originally in the article, it would be "no consensus" to remove. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC: Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations 

message: (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)
replies: text: What aspect of WP:NOTRUMOR are you thinking of?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I actually meant WP:NOTGOSSIP, specifically point #3. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 9 (reword) vs 5 (exclude) is not overwhelming. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, 9 vs 5 would be "no consensus" to include and reword. STSC (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that it was originally in the article, it would be "no consensus" to remove. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: I agree with . 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)
thread_title:  Tag removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170104115343/http://boxrec.com/records to http://boxrec.com/records
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120709080351/http://96.31.84.32/node/194795 to http://96.31.84.32/node/194795
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140526014439/http://www.interaksyon.com/interaktv/amid-criticism-manny-pacquiao-insists-i-can-coach-play-for-kia-in-pba to http://www.interaksyon.com/interaktv/amid-criticism-manny-pacquiao-insists-i-can-coach-play-for-kia-in-pba
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160216224554/http://www.interaksyon.com/interaktv/manny-pacquiaos-stand-on-same-sex-marriage-mas-masahol-pa-sa-hayop-ang-tao to http://www.interaksyon.com/interaktv/manny-pacquiaos-stand-on-same-sex-marriage-mas-masahol-pa-sa-hayop-ang-tao
*Added  tag to http://my.xfinity.com/slideshow/sports-highestpaidathletes/9/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 182.18.229.244 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019 

message: 182.18.228.183 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2019 

message: Can someone fix this?
"Mike Tyson's defeat of James "Buster" Douglas in 1990"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.35.112.194 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error: Douglas defeated Tyson ... 

message: I want to mention his children's names. 49.149.169.194 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLPNAME. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021 

message: can we discuss why the election subsection was removed? CutePeach (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 2022 Philippine presidential election

message: i changed his loss count from 7 to 8 Outrunno (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  he just lost 

message: Could you please add under "Awards and recognitions" under "national" awards that Manny Pacquiao was made a Knight Commander in the Philippines' Order of the Knights of Rizal in 2010? 2600:8807:5449:FB00:2520:CF6F:3B6C:BE29 (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021 

message: I just wanted to add that Manny Pacquiao was mentioned in Betty by Yung Gravy. 2600:1700:59E4:1020:49DD:87B4:AFD8:D2AF (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022 

message: Does his surname derive from the Cebuano word pakyaw, which means "wholesale" or "to buy or pay in bulk"? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin/etymology of surname 

message: Please add the “Professional Boxing Record” section (the one that shows all of his fights, opponents, record after each fight, method of victory, etc.), as it is absent from the page. 174.69.129.139 (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Presuming you mean the lengthy table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_career_of_Manny_Pacquiao#Professional_boxing_record , no. We fork things off into separate articles to keep articles from being too bloated Cannolis (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2023 

message: Pacquiao is regarded by many as one of the greatest Filipino boxers of all-time. 186.96.30.17 (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2023