Talk:Salvador Laurel

Extreme lack of NPOV, no citations

There are almost no sources cited (certainly not within the article text), the author has a distinct anti-Corazon Aquino bias and the language is far too florid and definitely not NPOV, with paragraphs like "During the dark days of martial law Marcos’ power was absolute. No one dared oppose him. Those who could have were either jailed or dead or had sought asylum abroad and from that safe and comfortable distance – chose to be silent. But not Doy – he went forth risking his life and with his fiery speeches he exhorted the people not to be afraid to come out from the dark and join him in the fight to restore democracy" being commonplace. Salvador Laurel was an important figure in the modern history of the Philippines, yes, but talking about his family's "illustrious lineage" or describing him as a "romantic and impressionable" youth makes the author sound like a sip sip. To try and re-write this article without bias would take far too long- almost every aspect of Laurel's life is written about in the same fawning tone. My suggestion would be to start again with a writer who isn't campaigning for Laurel to be canonised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.113.190 (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also wanted to add that the Philippines Wiki has a far more unbiased page on Laurel: http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Salvador_Laurel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.113.190 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You made a lot of good points. I'll go over the Philippines Wiki page and see how this one can be improved. Hope folks will go over my work from time to time and leave some feedback. Elchori01 (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)