Wikipedia

Talk:Manny Pacquiao/Archives/2017

< Talk:Manny Pacquiao
Latest comment: 7 years ago by HampsteadLord in topic Recent edits


Picture caption

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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.

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

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)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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.

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments5 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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)

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)

Competence is required

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"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

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

(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)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 7 years ago28 comments6 people in discussion

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manny_Pacquiao/Archives/2017&oldid=1237998528"