This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Tweets, FB statuses, YouTube videos and the subject's own blogs cannot be used as citation on Wikipedia so any addition to this article that cite on these kinds of sources shall be axed out. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 09:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The entire subsection is an OR (original research) which is not valid. PERIOD. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 09:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
---
According to WP:RS: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
- The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
- It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). -> not third party, it's about the subject
- It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
- There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
- The article is not based primarily on such sources.
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."
This means Facebook may be used as sources to support sections where Nieto directly said certain things as quotes. These are not original research as they are merely direct links to support the Reliable Source citation articles via by GMA News and Rappler. Thoughts on these, people? - Object404 ( talk) 02:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Those certain conditions are not the case for RJ Nieto's.
1. 'The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.'
→ RJ Neito's posts are self-serving, or so what is being implied by the contentious statement in the article you cited by his Facebook posts.
2. 'It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).' → You're trying to circumvent upon this exception even if the section in RJ Nieto's article is about third parties, particularly allegedly "fake news" about those third parties.
3. 'It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.'
→ Some of the contentious claims written on RJ Nieto's article cite references that does not directly involve or even mention him, but around Mocha Uson and other bloggers whose issues are distinct from his.
4. 'There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.'
→ Your "fake news" section about RJ Nieto failed on this criterion as its purpose per se is to question authenticity.
5. 'The article is not based primarily on such sources.
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.'
→ But those contentious statements about RJ Nieto were primarily based on his posts on his Facebook page. Even the news outlets refer primarily on his posts.
Additionally, you have not explained or justified how memebuster is a reliable source. It is not. It doesn't matter if news outlets cited these Facebook pages and tabloidesque partisan blogs. These are not reliable sources, and your use of such sources do not pass the critera for exceptions. You can just use news outlets as reference and stick to what is only written on those materials, not go as far as tweaking what was written upon these sources. Just because A is cited by B and B cites C does not mean you can cite C for A.
If you insist to use Nieto's Facebook posts as sources, perhaps it is better if we use archived version of these posts as social media posts can be edited and deleted. Like one admin suggested, only refer to social media posts when quoting the person directly.
The tone of the article was also assertive despite its questionable citations. A notice has already been added by another admin that contentious assertions be changed to neutral tone or remove entirely if poorly cited, as in accordance to rules in writing biography of wliving persons.
My suggestion, however, is that just axe away all those statements that are poorly cited or cited on OR/unreliable sources, or go find alternative citations that are more reliable. That's what you should have done long ago instead of just insisting on these exceptions that do not even support your use of social media posts as citation. Just provide alternative citations that are more reliable instead of wasting people's time insisting on using citations that are not valid. Failure to provide alternative citations for more than a year after I posted this Talk section only justifies that such content you've added are OR and justifies my removal of those questionable content. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 12:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Given those clarifications, on the context of RJ Nieto's alleged fake news, the citations used are in the context of disputable/disputed facts which are labeled fake news. And the falsification/dispute were done outside the social media posts but are referred to on external news outlets, so it is best to just cite the news outlet article and not the social media post as the article itself have cited and quoted the social media posts. Plus the statement on the article are written by the editor in editorialized and contentious way, even going as far as citing sources that does not even concern RJ Nieto directly (like some claims that cite to articles about Mocha Uson mixed with a social media post of Nieto). And as I have offered as a resolve, only use his social media post to quote his words, not as a sole citation for a non-verifiable claim. And once again, the other disputed claim that the tabloidesque website memebuster.net is RS remains unaddressed so I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RS, hence claims cited from it must be axed. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 02:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RSI think you should not be making any such assumptions. Generally, could you be specific about which statements cited to which sources you are taking issue with? Also generally, there is nothing inappropriate about linking to the facebook post that is the subject of a news article, unless that post is reproduced in its entirety on the news article itself. The goal is to provide readers with a citation not only to the secondary source on which Wikipedia relies for analysis, but also to the primary source where the reader can analyze for themselves. This is usually a good idea whenever a secondary source is describing a primary source. Someguy1221 ( talk) 06:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RSI concur. You're taking some significant liberties with that assumption. A primary source IS appropriate in some instances and this is one of those times. The phrasing should be as neutral as possible. Someguy rephrased what I said and emphasized what I was going to say in reply as well...thanks! Buffs ( talk) 15:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
With the silence means consensus comment, NoNDesCRiPT seems to be referring to this part:
Nieto has posted fake news and misinformation multiple times on his blog and Facebook page. [1] [2]
which uses MemeBuster.net. I actually share their concerns over this source at least for BLPs. While it's evidently been cited by CNN before, I'm not convinced it meets our strong sourcing requirements. For example, I see no info on who runs the site in the about page, and the particular article cited says the author is Meme Buster and clicking the link doesn't provide any clue who wrote it.
That said, this seems to be a site focused on the Philippines and I don't know much about sources from there other than the fact it's recognised to be a dangerous media environment [1]. So people may well have good reasons for needing anonymity. As I said at AN, it may be helpful to seek further feedback on this source at either RSN or BLPN if there is continued dispute.
I would note that in any case since we have another RS, the removal of this source does not mean the change in wording was justified. The details of the other source may very well justify the original wording.
Nil Einne ( talk) 16:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Please avoid adding contents that are ORIGINAL RESEARCH, contents referenced to citations that DO NOT AT ALL TACKLE THE SUBJECT, contents referenced to social media posts or to the website of the subject.
Some of the subsections contain texts that are cited towards articles about Duterte and not RJ Nieto. These must be moved to Duterte's article as that is the purpose of creating separate articles. Just because the subject supports Duterte doesn't mean you can interchange citations for the two.
Do not invent contents then give citations that doesn't support what you've added.
‘“Duterte said this” therefore it implies that’ is not a valid citation. That implication must also be pointed out by another external source and not by the original research of the editor. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Jjlang response to above:
Given than Nieto's online persona exists solely to make propaganda for Duterte, it seems licit within scope of this article to contextualise his activity within a larger media theory and socio-historical context.
Duterte's behaviour towards people like Nieto is not an unrelated issue. It gives direct information on how people like Nieto are supported by Duterte himself with government appointments.
Granted, some of my statements could be edited to be more concise, but taking into account the wide influence of Nieto on Philippine political punditry and public opinion making, it's necessary to offer a larger context. As a public figure belonging a certain well-researched ilk, it seems relevant to situate Nieto's activity within a larger constellation of misinformation. He is a clear part of what researchers such as Jason Cabanes have publicly referred to as a wide architecture of disinformation in the Duterte regime. Bringing this academic research in seems quite relevant to offer a contemporary historical context. Or am I wrong?
Sincerely interested in the opinion of experienced editors and objective, constructive voices. Am kind of tired of the edit-war tone in the talk page, bent on twisting wiki policy with dubious "logic" instead of trying to understand it at face value and comply with it. Hoping for less convoluted grandstanding and more actual wiki-faithful advice on how to improve the factual content of this article. Also looking forward to this advice for improving my wikipedia writing style--which is frankly the only kind of writing that is giving me hope in the post-truth era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjlang ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The article cited links to Facebook posts, the subject's own website and "memebuster.net" which are all not news sites or verified references. Contents cited to these links must be removed. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 08:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
As per discussion above in the "Social Media Entries As Citation" section, the usage of social media citations in the subject's article is valid and supportive of the news citations. As such, I would like to request an administrator to reinstate said citations.
The deleted citations may be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=RJ_Nieto&diff=916969414&oldid=916951897
Furthermore, the multiple usage of "allegedly" in the "Fake news and misinformation" section is inappropriate as 1) Nieto really did spread misinformation. 2) Nieto really did accuse photojournalist Jes Aznar of endangering government troops 3) Nieto really did cite a falsified 1979 psychiatric report attributed to the late Fr. Jaime Bulatao, SJ (as seen in the social media citation post by Nieto on Facebook)
As such, may we also request that instances of the word "allegedly" also be removed from the section.
Regards, - Object404 ( talk) 18:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources that the radio show "Karambola" is "political lampoon". Without reliable sources on this, this characterization should be removed from the article. - Object404 ( talk) 08:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe Azuresky Voight has already removed the problematic content. As such am removing the following hat note:
"This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (April 2018) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (April 2018)" - Object404 ( talk) 09:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Tweets, FB statuses, YouTube videos and the subject's own blogs cannot be used as citation on Wikipedia so any addition to this article that cite on these kinds of sources shall be axed out. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 09:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The entire subsection is an OR (original research) which is not valid. PERIOD. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 09:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
---
According to WP:RS: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:
- The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
- It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). -> not third party, it's about the subject
- It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
- There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
- The article is not based primarily on such sources.
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."
This means Facebook may be used as sources to support sections where Nieto directly said certain things as quotes. These are not original research as they are merely direct links to support the Reliable Source citation articles via by GMA News and Rappler. Thoughts on these, people? - Object404 ( talk) 02:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Those certain conditions are not the case for RJ Nieto's.
1. 'The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.'
→ RJ Neito's posts are self-serving, or so what is being implied by the contentious statement in the article you cited by his Facebook posts.
2. 'It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).' → You're trying to circumvent upon this exception even if the section in RJ Nieto's article is about third parties, particularly allegedly "fake news" about those third parties.
3. 'It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.'
→ Some of the contentious claims written on RJ Nieto's article cite references that does not directly involve or even mention him, but around Mocha Uson and other bloggers whose issues are distinct from his.
4. 'There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.'
→ Your "fake news" section about RJ Nieto failed on this criterion as its purpose per se is to question authenticity.
5. 'The article is not based primarily on such sources.
These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.'
→ But those contentious statements about RJ Nieto were primarily based on his posts on his Facebook page. Even the news outlets refer primarily on his posts.
Additionally, you have not explained or justified how memebuster is a reliable source. It is not. It doesn't matter if news outlets cited these Facebook pages and tabloidesque partisan blogs. These are not reliable sources, and your use of such sources do not pass the critera for exceptions. You can just use news outlets as reference and stick to what is only written on those materials, not go as far as tweaking what was written upon these sources. Just because A is cited by B and B cites C does not mean you can cite C for A.
If you insist to use Nieto's Facebook posts as sources, perhaps it is better if we use archived version of these posts as social media posts can be edited and deleted. Like one admin suggested, only refer to social media posts when quoting the person directly.
The tone of the article was also assertive despite its questionable citations. A notice has already been added by another admin that contentious assertions be changed to neutral tone or remove entirely if poorly cited, as in accordance to rules in writing biography of wliving persons.
My suggestion, however, is that just axe away all those statements that are poorly cited or cited on OR/unreliable sources, or go find alternative citations that are more reliable. That's what you should have done long ago instead of just insisting on these exceptions that do not even support your use of social media posts as citation. Just provide alternative citations that are more reliable instead of wasting people's time insisting on using citations that are not valid. Failure to provide alternative citations for more than a year after I posted this Talk section only justifies that such content you've added are OR and justifies my removal of those questionable content. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 12:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Given those clarifications, on the context of RJ Nieto's alleged fake news, the citations used are in the context of disputable/disputed facts which are labeled fake news. And the falsification/dispute were done outside the social media posts but are referred to on external news outlets, so it is best to just cite the news outlet article and not the social media post as the article itself have cited and quoted the social media posts. Plus the statement on the article are written by the editor in editorialized and contentious way, even going as far as citing sources that does not even concern RJ Nieto directly (like some claims that cite to articles about Mocha Uson mixed with a social media post of Nieto). And as I have offered as a resolve, only use his social media post to quote his words, not as a sole citation for a non-verifiable claim. And once again, the other disputed claim that the tabloidesque website memebuster.net is RS remains unaddressed so I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RS, hence claims cited from it must be axed. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 02:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RSI think you should not be making any such assumptions. Generally, could you be specific about which statements cited to which sources you are taking issue with? Also generally, there is nothing inappropriate about linking to the facebook post that is the subject of a news article, unless that post is reproduced in its entirety on the news article itself. The goal is to provide readers with a citation not only to the secondary source on which Wikipedia relies for analysis, but also to the primary source where the reader can analyze for themselves. This is usually a good idea whenever a secondary source is describing a primary source. Someguy1221 ( talk) 06:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RSI concur. You're taking some significant liberties with that assumption. A primary source IS appropriate in some instances and this is one of those times. The phrasing should be as neutral as possible. Someguy rephrased what I said and emphasized what I was going to say in reply as well...thanks! Buffs ( talk) 15:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
With the silence means consensus comment, NoNDesCRiPT seems to be referring to this part:
Nieto has posted fake news and misinformation multiple times on his blog and Facebook page. [1] [2]
which uses MemeBuster.net. I actually share their concerns over this source at least for BLPs. While it's evidently been cited by CNN before, I'm not convinced it meets our strong sourcing requirements. For example, I see no info on who runs the site in the about page, and the particular article cited says the author is Meme Buster and clicking the link doesn't provide any clue who wrote it.
That said, this seems to be a site focused on the Philippines and I don't know much about sources from there other than the fact it's recognised to be a dangerous media environment [1]. So people may well have good reasons for needing anonymity. As I said at AN, it may be helpful to seek further feedback on this source at either RSN or BLPN if there is continued dispute.
I would note that in any case since we have another RS, the removal of this source does not mean the change in wording was justified. The details of the other source may very well justify the original wording.
Nil Einne ( talk) 16:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Please avoid adding contents that are ORIGINAL RESEARCH, contents referenced to citations that DO NOT AT ALL TACKLE THE SUBJECT, contents referenced to social media posts or to the website of the subject.
Some of the subsections contain texts that are cited towards articles about Duterte and not RJ Nieto. These must be moved to Duterte's article as that is the purpose of creating separate articles. Just because the subject supports Duterte doesn't mean you can interchange citations for the two.
Do not invent contents then give citations that doesn't support what you've added.
‘“Duterte said this” therefore it implies that’ is not a valid citation. That implication must also be pointed out by another external source and not by the original research of the editor. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Jjlang response to above:
Given than Nieto's online persona exists solely to make propaganda for Duterte, it seems licit within scope of this article to contextualise his activity within a larger media theory and socio-historical context.
Duterte's behaviour towards people like Nieto is not an unrelated issue. It gives direct information on how people like Nieto are supported by Duterte himself with government appointments.
Granted, some of my statements could be edited to be more concise, but taking into account the wide influence of Nieto on Philippine political punditry and public opinion making, it's necessary to offer a larger context. As a public figure belonging a certain well-researched ilk, it seems relevant to situate Nieto's activity within a larger constellation of misinformation. He is a clear part of what researchers such as Jason Cabanes have publicly referred to as a wide architecture of disinformation in the Duterte regime. Bringing this academic research in seems quite relevant to offer a contemporary historical context. Or am I wrong?
Sincerely interested in the opinion of experienced editors and objective, constructive voices. Am kind of tired of the edit-war tone in the talk page, bent on twisting wiki policy with dubious "logic" instead of trying to understand it at face value and comply with it. Hoping for less convoluted grandstanding and more actual wiki-faithful advice on how to improve the factual content of this article. Also looking forward to this advice for improving my wikipedia writing style--which is frankly the only kind of writing that is giving me hope in the post-truth era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjlang ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The article cited links to Facebook posts, the subject's own website and "memebuster.net" which are all not news sites or verified references. Contents cited to these links must be removed. NoNDeSCRiPT ( talk) 08:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
As per discussion above in the "Social Media Entries As Citation" section, the usage of social media citations in the subject's article is valid and supportive of the news citations. As such, I would like to request an administrator to reinstate said citations.
The deleted citations may be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=RJ_Nieto&diff=916969414&oldid=916951897
Furthermore, the multiple usage of "allegedly" in the "Fake news and misinformation" section is inappropriate as 1) Nieto really did spread misinformation. 2) Nieto really did accuse photojournalist Jes Aznar of endangering government troops 3) Nieto really did cite a falsified 1979 psychiatric report attributed to the late Fr. Jaime Bulatao, SJ (as seen in the social media citation post by Nieto on Facebook)
As such, may we also request that instances of the word "allegedly" also be removed from the section.
Regards, - Object404 ( talk) 18:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources that the radio show "Karambola" is "political lampoon". Without reliable sources on this, this characterization should be removed from the article. - Object404 ( talk) 08:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe Azuresky Voight has already removed the problematic content. As such am removing the following hat note:
"This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (April 2018) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (April 2018)" - Object404 ( talk) 09:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)