Talk:Manny Pacquiao/Archives/2017

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

Picture caption

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.

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

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

Lead section

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.

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)

Split proposed

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manny_Pacquiao/Archives/2017&oldid=1143132346"