Talk:Piolo Pascual

message: I just added the imporatant contract signed with link.
--Florentino floro 07:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sorry to pop people's foreign blood worshipping bubble, but Piolo Pascual's father was not German, his father was only of PARTIAL German ancestry. If you say "Piolo's father was German", that should mean that he's a Caucasian who speaks German, his father speaks Tagalog and is a Filipino of only partial German ancestry. Just ask any member of his family, and watch the DVD of his concert special, it's all there.
--Question: When people find out that his Fathers "NOT" German, will they stop liking him? It seems in the Philippines, they seem to hate themselves and there culture and love everyone thats remotely NOT Filipino. Piolo is a great actor regardless that he isn't half like alot people wish he was. By the way, the reason why people like to say his fathers German is just to put him in the new category of foreign talent in the Philippines, i.e. Sam, Gerald, Bea, Anne.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.164.60 (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually saying his farther is German means his farther is a German citizen (not necessarily exclusively a German citizenship as the Philippines recognizes dual citizenships) NOT that he's a German speaking Caucasian. I guess the debate is about the catagory the article is in, since we can't reference the citizenship question i guess it should not be categorized as a German-Filipino article but i don't feel so strongly about it that i'm going to remove the category myself harlock_jds (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piolo's Father was not German 

message: I thought articles were supposed to be objective, not laudatory. This sort of reporting is bound to spoil Wikipedia's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard Macdougall (talk • contribs) 2007-07-25T00:59:46
:You can help make it neutral. --bluemask (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I added this as sequel to the Wiki edit regarding these 2 guy's plea for justice. Reconciliation -  Not it ended: The libel case was dismissed on May 14, 2008, after Lolit Solis' affidavit retracted her tabloid story allegedly depicting actors Piolo Pascual and Sam Milby as “gay men.” Pascual and Milby fied with Judge Jose Mendoza, Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, the affidavit of desistance to officially withdraw the case.  www.gmanews.tv/video, Saksi: Libel case vs Lolit Solis dropped, 05/14/2008 newsinfo.inquirer.net, Piolo, Sam drop case vs Lolit --Florentino floro (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out all mention (in the article) of the libel suit as well as the original tabloid allegations that led to the suit, per wp:blp. The suit has been dropped, the original charges that were potentially libelous have been retracted, there is no reason to try to keep the controversy alive by keeping details here. maxsch (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DENIED for utter violation of Wiki Rules, specifically: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)." Why should you remove or delete my contribution, on the controversy case? I had been here and contributed more than 3,700 edits. I had hundreds of experiences on editing legal controversies of Presidents, Senators, and actors, Philippines and abroad. When you removed the controversy about these actors, just because it was settled, dismissed or otherwise terminated, that is against Wiki rules of neutrality. You are making it appear that the article's subject actor had no case. Besides, you are not a lawyer. I am, and here in the Philippines, like in USA, like this one I edited Same-sex marriage in California‎, the decision is not final until after the lapse of 30 days. And in this case, P 12 million libel suit, is very notable, and removing it would be like in the case of Queen Beatrix and Vatican who were caught by the Wiki scanner of editing their own articles. The RTC had not even acted on the Motion by the parties Lolit, Sam and Milby, since the Public Prosecutor must sign the conformity. I myself was fined P 40,000 because of a similar accusation alleging the Prosecutor had not confirmed the parties settlement. So, the case is not yet finished. And even if finished it must stay since the sources I submitted are reliable. You are misleading the discussion by citing the fact of tabloid. The libel was published in the tabloid, but the case and its current events were not reported by me per tabloid but by top verifiable links. You continously violated the Wiki rules. I have to revert this to preserve the neutrality of the article. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the case and the circumstances around it should be a part of the article and think the correct writeup in the article is a good one (not too much extra detail, just the facts). The fact that this was a court case pushed this beyond just a tabloid report (which would violate BLP) harlock_jds (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This totally smacks of WP:BLP1E.  I'm removing mention in the article, since the case does not seem to be notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BLP1E covers people who are only noteable because of one event. I don't see how that applies to what you removed.harlock_jds (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: *The section on this controversy was removed again today, with the editor citing WP:BLP. While it is important to removed unsourced negative content, this section was clearly properly sourced and I have re-instated it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have added the section on the libel case back in. It was reported on in a widely distributed news source, so there's no problem with the sourcing. It seems to be written from a neutral point of view, so I don't see a problem there either. If there were other sourced information on Pascual's personal life, it could be merged there, but as of now there is no such section. It's a rather brief write up, and I have put it at the end of the article, I don't think it gives the incident undue weight, it's certainly not the focus of the article. Thoughts, anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have a very novel understanding of BLP. BLP isn't just about sourcing - verifiability is only one aspect of BLP. The other components are WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and part of NPOV is undue weight. Just because something has a source doesn't mean that it is suitable for a BLP. I would not have such an objection to say one sentence written into the text of the article saying that he filed a suit against a publication which alleged he was gay and he withdrew it when the publication retracted the allegations, but a dedicated section in such a short bio is unacceptable and reeks of giving undue weight to the incident. Do you know how minor this sort of thing is? I mean, most actors have a similar experiences at some time in their career and devoting an entire section to one incident is ridiculous. If you think it needs to be mentioned then find somewhere to write it into the article in a sentence.  Also, I must say I find your edit summary about "...not edit war over it please" rather ironic coming from someone who is edit warring against an administrator who clearly states they are trying to remove content under BLP. If an admin makes an edit citing BLP and you don't agree with them or don't understand, you need to go to their page and ask them to explain rather than launching an edit war against them. Sarah 12:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  i am going to intergrate it into the Carrer section harlock_jds (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reply to Sarah the almighty administratorYou seem to have a rather novel understanding of what being an administrator is all about. Why did a lowly user like myself have to persuade you to come to the talk page to discuss this. How did you ever get the mop without even knowing that the talk page is the place for discussing any edits likely to be controversial. I don't have to come crawling to you on your talk page begging you to come down from on high and explain your actions to us lowly mortals, I made my case on the talk page, that is how it works here and an admin should know better than to act as you have. I have explained my position above, but you apparently only read or understood part of what I said, and keep repeating the same "undue weight" rationale. Consensus seems right now to be leaning towards inclusion, yet you continue to edit war with Harlock jds over it. Shame on you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually don't care either way but i don't see any reason NOT to include it (other than "I don't like it") especially since it is cited. It is a notable incident in his career (he is still asked about it in interviews) perhaps at some point in the future it won't be as significant but i don't think we should crystal ball and decide that now. I don't consider this an edit war at all. Having it in it's own section may have been too much so integrations into the article itself seems to be a good move and i took a stab at it. I do wish that editors (and esp admin) would take a bit more time and make changes to information so it can be included if the information itself doesn't violate any rules instead of just delegating it without talking to anyone harlock_jds (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  this is still something that is brought up in interviews with the man. Yes in the future it may be a minor aspect of his carrer but we can't predict the future so it should be kept in currently as it is not a curent minor aspect.harlock_jds (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *This isn't quite the lively debate I was hoping for... Beeblebrox (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dismissal of Libel case 

message: Absolutely nothing in the Biography section is cited and i don't know what is true and what isn't. If we can't get any cites i'm afraid it will have to be removed.harlock_jds (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography section removal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Piolo Pascual. 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/20131024024515/http://nationwidehitsandflopsph.blogspot.com/2012/03/highest-grossing-pinoy-movies-of-all.html to http://nationwidehitsandflopsph.blogspot.com/2012/03/highest-grossing-pinoy-movies-of-all.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503040154/http://www.philstar.com/index.php?Entertainment&p=49&type=2&sec=31 to http://www.philstar.com/index.php?Entertainment&p=49&type=2&sec=31
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) 17:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified