Talk:Angeles City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angeles City article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

	This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
Start	This article has been rated* as Start-Class on the assessment scale.*
Top	This article has been rated* as Top-importance on the importance scale.*

	This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.
Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit \| Purge ==Angeles City== Page requires a clean-up. Recent arbcom case relating to disruptive edting. (note: page is currently protected) - however unprotection should now be possible.

Archives
2005-2006 26 December 2006 - 4 January 2007 28 December 2007 - 25 April 2007 25 April 2007 - 22 May 2007

Re Susan Bryces lies on the sex slave camps of Angeles - Friday, July 20, 2007 Cop chief denies sex slave camp in Angeles By Reynaldo G. Navales

ANGELES CITY -- Police Chief Sonny Cunanan said there is no truth to reports that a prostitution slave camp exists in Angeles City. In his letter to Sun.Star Pampanga, Cunanan said: "Be informed that this office (Angeles City Police Office) strongly disclaimed any illegal activity such as a slave camp within Angeles City." He said the Women's and Children's Concerned Section (WCCS) and other agencies of the Angeles City Government that are responsible for the regular inspection of different bars and nightclubs have no records about the existence of a sex slave camp in the city.

[edit] Suggesting New Addition: Welfare Groups and NGO's

Welfare Groups and NGO`S Orbis the flying eye hospital, a charity that provides free medical treatment is active in Angeles helping children in Angeles in restoring and saving their eyesite. They have visited Angeles in their flying hospital and also, working with the Central Luzon Society of Ophthalmologists, a local chapter of the Philippines Academy of Ophthalmology, the ORBIS program provided training to approximately 100 eye care personnel during the Angeles City program. When the Orbis flying hospital is not in Angeles, it continues its training through hospital-based programs, fellowships, telemedicine via the Internet and the provision of educational materials. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Preda has been actively involved in Angeles for numerous years. The intervention of Preda into the Mango business over the past years has helped.^[5]Preda has also been active in helping children in jail. ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] Preda has been involved in helping law enforcement bring those involved in the prostitution of children to court.^[9]^[10] The Salvation Army set up office there in 2005 and have been active in helping. ^[11] Another charity group, ReachOut Foundation International, with funding from USAID, PATH, and FHI launched a comprehensive AIDS/STD prevention program targeting the brothel-based female sex workers and their partners in this community.^[12] Other women’s organizations include Women’s Legal Bureau, Women’s Crisis Center, Women’s Health Care Foundation, Conspectus, Kalayaan); the Nagkakaisang Kababaihan ng Angeles City Multi-Purpose Cooperative (NKAC, or United Women of Angeles City Multi-Purpose Cooperative) in Angeles City. ^[13] The Women’s Health Care Foundation, WEDPRO sponsors a clinic in Angeles City. The Philippine Children's Fund for America^[14] was created by the US and Philippine governments in 1991 to assist impoverished Filipino children of American ancestry by providing educational scholarships, employment and working visas to the United States. They have a Philippine office in Clark Field, Angeles City. Many Amerasian children are to be found in Angeles City.^[15]^[16] The Loving Care Street Kids Foundation provides offers free meals to the thousands of children left homeless on the streets on Angeles city.^[17] Many homeless street children are taken to the Bahay Bata Center, an institution taking care of orphans and abused children. ^[18]GABRIELA, which is the National Alliance of Women's Organizations in the Philippines is actively involved in Angeles in massive awareness campaigns to prevent the trafficking of women and girls from the Philippines . Its strategies consist of seminars and dissemination of information to NGOs and Government Agencies that are working for the advancement of women and awareness campaigns at the community level. The Ing Makababaying Aksyon (IMA) Foundation, Women's Development and Resource Center has been active in helping the victims os the sex slavery trade in Angeles.^[19]

I believe this is a valuable addition to the article. It is very well cited with quality sources. It has a right to be in the article as it is within wikipedia guidlines. Other areas of the Angeles article include schools, barangays, businesses, etc. So it is a good addition that charities and welfare agencies are included.Susanbryce 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

you are joking, right?RodentofDeath 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if we're enumerating all the schools in town, it would also be reasonable to include welfare groups and NGO's, which are at least as significant.

The ones to include would be those operating specificly in Angeles City; not (for instance) the AC branch of The Salvation Army, which would be hardly more notable than the AC Walmart. / edgarde 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

i have no problem with listing the salvation army and other fine organizations. its the stupid biased information just posted (which has already been corrected and deleted before) that we can do without. for instance, the flying eye hospital has been to angeles a total of one time. susan uses this as an excuse to insert the word "slum" into the article once again. the flying eye hospital is not active in angeles. she claims there is distant learning but the distant learning is available to EVERYONE and really has nothing to do with angeles in particular.

The repeated accusation that Susanbryce simply wants to insert the word "slum" seems like a specious presumption, and is counter to both assuming good faith and refraining from personal attacks. Also it makes people wonder how bad the slum situation must be in AC if someone is so very defensive. / edgarde 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you weren't here at the time. there was a bit of an edit war when i proved that angeles is listed as a first class city. she kept insisting on calling it a slum city. not being defensive. no presumptions. just stating facts. i am sure its all there in the history.RodentofDeath 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

i will soon be organizing a list of gas stations in town, a complete list of every intersection in town and a list of all ATM locations since it appears we are now finding everything that exists in the town notable enough to be in this article. RodentofDeath 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". / edgarde 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry, missed your comment about not including them all. RodentofDeath 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider the "Show preview" button. / edgarde 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

the Bahay Bata Center is a wonderful organization and i contribute to them on a regular basis. in fact i am going to one of their fundraisers this coming saturday. however, inserting comments after the organizations seem like another repeated attempt to make angeles look bad. the "many homeless street kids" implies there are a disproportionate amount of street kids in angeles and it may be best to not introduce NPOV concerns. a list of active and notable organizations with very brief descriptions may be best. also, calling them "charitable organizations" instead of welfare groups maybe more accurate. RodentofDeath 19:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you do an article on them? Seems like it would give you a nice break from slamming PREDA. / edgarde 20:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that brief descriptions are best. / edgarde 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

no urge to slam anyone. just stating the facts.RodentofDeath 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I removed the word slums from the article, "even though it is constantly mentioned in the references". Also, it should be stated that when the Orbis flying hospital is not in Angeles, it continues its training through hospital-based programs, fellowships, telemedicine via the Internet and the provision of educational materials in Angeles, so the org has a constant activity there.Susanbryce 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also added gariela to that list.Susanbryce 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And now things devolve to personal attacks. Yay.

"even though it is constantly mentioned in the references" only shows that your references are biased too. i dont see the need to have a description for every charity. the charities themselves should be able to stand on their own without need for further comment. i also dont feel the need to list every charity that has ever been through angeles. the ones that are based in angeles should be fine. RodentofDeath 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a telephone directory, so it is a good idea to give a description of the orgs and the work they do.Susanbryce 14:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

who said anything about a telephone directory? are you being condescending to me? i think its a horrible idea because it introduces NPOV concerns and as we can see by your past descriptions of what the charities do you try to insert your political slant on the descriptions. this IS an encyclopedia and if someone wants to look up a specific charity and what they do they can be directed to that charity's encyclopedia entry. there is no need for multiple descriptions of the same charity all over different wikipedia pages. RodentofDeath 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the general campaign has been to remove anything perceived as unflattering poses an NPOV problem. The attempt to list organizations dealing with significant problems in the town does not. / edgarde 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

it may be true that most of the stuff that is being removed is unflattering but that would be because most of the lies inserted in the article were unflattering. previously we had nobody inserting lies like "everyone in angeles is happy and it is the most friendly city in asia" so there is no need to remove it. what we did have was silly things like "angeles is a slum" and "56% of the entire population are prostitutes" therefore its the unflattering things getting removed. RodentofDeath 08:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So guess who's back? Oh well, it seems like Susan Bryce a.k.a. Edgarde is still persistent on her aim to put Angeles in bad light again. To Susan, I thought you're gonna stop with your demoralizing tactics against this city??? I thought you have ONE word, huh?

You're definitely not helping this discussion as it has been agreed upon that your suggestion to include your so-called "welfare groups" is insignificant as most of them are no longer existing (if ever they did exist). It's so apparent you keep a "grudge," thus you keep on pushing a personal agenda against Angeles. You have to move on, for Christ's sake!

Susan, please stop it. We don't wanna argue with you anymore and we find it totally useless now. You're being irrational and if you insist that all the schools and universities that have been mentioned here be deleted, then let just the moderators remove the entry at once so as just to stop you from bashing this city. Hope that pacifies you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.180.4 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please consider Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy.

Also, I don't think anyone (other than the above anonymous editor) has suggested deleting the list of schools. / edgarde 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm pretty sure edgarde and susan are not the same person. aside from the personal stuff, i think what they were saying was that if the list of schools justifies adding welfare groups then just delete the list of schools. i dont agree but think that both lists should be handled similarly. they should actually be based in angeles and should be notable enough to stand on their own merit without detailed explanations. for instance, i see no need to put the University of Phoenix in the list of schools and then explain they have a distance learning program.RodentofDeath 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short explanations for NGO's

no, im not suggesting removing schools at all, the debate is on we include only philippine charities, business, etc or we also include foreign entities. I have no problem with foreign entities that are active in Angeles be it a business, charity or school. But watever is decided, it must apply to all. So we cant refuse a foreign charity and then say list a foreign business, we must be fair and balanced. We also need to keep this encyclopedic by providing a short explanation of what these ngo`s do, then back that up with citations. Its no point if people see for example, "blah blah charity" but have no idea what they do. Best to give them a short explanation, then if they need to explore it further they can click on a citation.Susanbryce 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

what makes you think that to be "encyclopedic" we NEED to give short explanations? first of all, if someone wants an explanation on one of the charities listed then all they need to do is click on name and they get it. this is the internet. things like that work wonderfully here. secondly, if explanations are given and later the information or goal of the charity changes, as was the case with preda originally being for drug addicts, then not only does it need to be changed in the original charities entry on wikipedia but then you need to search the entire wikipedia site for any discussion of that charity and update it in those locations also. giving the user the ability to click on the link to that charities page is more than sufficient for this article. Lastly, i dont have much confidence that the information entered into this page will be accurate and have a NPOV given your past insistence that the flying eye hospital has been to angeles hundreds of times when it was there only once.—The preceding comment is by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 May 2007: Please sign your posts!

Short explanations make sense. Lists of reader-unfamiliar organizations with zero information are not helpful, and contrary to WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, so yes in this case it can be said we need to give them. Any organization needing more than a sentence or so might need its own article. If the list dominates the article, it should be summarized here and expanded somewhere else, but I don't expect that will really be a problem.

Organizations where no Angeles-relevant explanation can be included may be insufficiently notable in this article. / edgarde 09:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, is it only fair to give a short explanation about all the establishments, schools, universities, malls, hotels and resorts that Angeles has and what they offer???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.180.4 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC).

And may I add? How about giving an explanation as well about every barangay/district in Angeles so people would have an idea as to how the place looks like, the land area, and the people of the surrounding area. Sounds fair to you?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.180.4 (talk • contribs) 13:09 1 June 2007 (UTC).

Sure. It would improve the article. Why is this phrased as if it were some kind of threat? Go ahead. Anything that overwhelms the article can be spun off per Wikipedia:Summary style.

If you need a place to start, it would be great to have well-sourced, encyclopedic information on all 33 barangays. This would be a good place to start them. / edgarde 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

i would caution that editors may have a conflict of interest in this area. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest RodentofDeath 13:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

actually, i really like the hotel and resort idea. i think we should have a section on that with some explanations. it sure would help dispel the notion one editor has that this is a slum city and bring a more realistic view of this place. RodentofDeath 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Edgarde has the best idea, im going to do a complete seperate page on all charities, welfare orgs and ngo`s in Angeles now. So forget about adding it here. thanks.Susanbryce 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

if your claims of founding a charity and promoting it are correct then that would be a serious violation of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest RodentofDeath 02:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destroying Angeles again

Now I'm afraid Susan Bryce will do all her efforts to destroy Angeles again. To all moderators, please try to make an observation on what the motives of other editors are in this entry. We all know the fact that Susan has kept on attacking this city by calling it a "slum city," "the city with the highest incidence of AIDS" and even claiming that majority of people here are prostitutes without any basis, which of course is a lie and a very demeaning statement to the townfolks. Susan, if you have a personal agenda against Angeles, please don't do it here. My mom and my sisters were never prostitutes so it hurts the most when you kept on slandering the people here. I would rather help you in your effort in helping the city in other ways, but not in this way. There are much better venues to do it. Thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikabod08 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 June 2007

So, new contributor, you're saying Angeles will be destroyed by having information about problems in the city included in this article? Angeles had a volcanic eruption, yet Wikipedia is what destroys Angeles City?

Just checking here. Anything bad that goes on should not be written about because it destroys Angeles City. Is this what you are actually saying? / edgarde 16:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what I'm saying, Edgarde. It won't take too much logic to know if one person would state or claim a thing just to push his/her personal agenda against this city.

To say that Angeles was destroyed by Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 is a fact.' But to say that majority of women are whores and 50% of the kids in this city are homeless is a horrible, biased and baseless opinion. I have full trust that Wikipedia won't let that happen.

Anyone in his right mind will sure know how to differentiate what being objective is from being subjective. Ikabod08 19:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Ikabod08

Information you do not like does not destroy Angeles City, even in a "subjective" way. Melodramatic whining will not help your case.

No one is calling your mother a prostitute, or saying "everyone" in Angeles City has AIDS. These are Straw man arguments, and not helpful in discussing the content of this article.

What I'm hearing here is you don't want certain well-sourced information about Angeles City included in this article. To exclude such information is contrary to Wikipedia policy — Wikipedia is not censored.

Your repeated claim that editors posting information you don't like have the intention of causing harm to Angeles City is extremely unfounded, and furthermore constitutes a personal attack. This is contrary to Wikipedia's policy — Comment on content, not on the contributor. / edgarde 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm exactly saying, Edgarde. Well, if I may not sound too demanding, why not go back to all the edits of Susan to see it for yourself what I meant? And I need not go further in telling you what we, Angeles folks, want to prove to you.

And just to clarify things, I did NOT say that I don't want well-sourced information about this city. It just so happened that some citations here came from the organizations where Susan have been much involvement to. Thus, you may not help but smell a personal agenda against this city.

And again, never did I harass Susan. Anyone would surely be not be in favor to hear of the demeaning statements "majority of women in your city are whores and kids are homeless...yadda yadda yadda..." If you feel that way, then I do apologize for the probably not-so-good words I had thrown here. And to straighten out things, we feel we're entitled to comment on whatever content/intention some people may put here.

We're only trying to air our side so as to prevent any further disputes, and not to atack anyone. Ikabod08 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Ikabod08

If we want to prevent further disputes, we want to discuss current and future edits, not old ones. I've come to the conclusion that I'll never finish reading the hundreds and hundreds of kilobytes of bickering on AC-related Talk pages, and unless someone can point me to a particular edit, I'll either read the rest when I get around to, or never.

If you have issue with what you perceive is someone's agenda, you should consider the dispute resolution process. However, it is entirely inappropriate here. Discuss the edits, not the motivation; the article, not the personalities. Persistent personal attacks are not productive and may result in being blocked. I didn't make that rule up, but it's a good one. / edgarde 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put up or shut up

not surprisingly, edgarde, i disagree. the editor's agenda is well documented both within wikipedia and elsewhere. the editor has a history of deliberately inserting false and misleading information here to further this agenda. there is a blatantly obvious conflict of interest with this editor that you seem to refuse to acknowledge exists. this is not a personal attack on either you or the other editor but a criticism on what false and misleading information gets inserted into the article AND WHY. RodentofDeath 00:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only do I "refuse to acknowlege" this, I refuse to be interested in it. If this is as big a problem as you say it is, take it to the Administrators, or to dispute resolution. This incessant complaining, edit warring, specious argument and accusation does not help develop the article. edgarde 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. "Well-documented" conflicts of interest combined with aggressive POV-pushing can get a user sanctioned with extreme prejudice. If you sincerely believe this is an issue, you won't get it addressed on the article talk page. Take it to dispute resolution. This page is for discussing edits, not personalities. / edgarde 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your honesty in admitting your bias. i appreciate it. to the contrary, the arguments and accusations DO HELP the article because the arguments and accusations are what brings the truth into focus. if it were not for the arguments and accusations then this article would still have errors such as calling Angeles a slum city with 56% of the entire population being prostitutes. as you know, the first step in resolving a dispute is to discuss it here. RodentofDeath 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The first step has been completed. I have just archived another 75kb of accusations against the same editor. This is the 4th such archive of the same repetitive accusations for just this article.

Put up or shut up. If you sincerely believe this is an issue, take it to dispute resolution, or to Administration. / edgarde 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

macho bravado aside, the amount of archives is not indicitive of the amount of arguments against one particular thing. it is more representative of sheer volume of errors inserted into this article by an editor with an agenda. RodentofDeath 01:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have given you explicit instructions for dealing with the sort of problem you describe. And after all this complaining, you insist on doing nothing but continued complaining.

If there exists a sheer volume of errors inserted into this article by an editor with an agenda, you would have no problem making your case in a dispute resolution. Your choice not to do so indicates you have nothing. / edgarde 01:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

first of all, i am not particularly happy with the animosity you are displaying towards me. the sheer volume of errors inserted into this article by an editor with an agenda is there for everyone to see in the article history. i am not foolish enough to ask for moderation if the errors have already been proven false through discussion and removed. may i please remind you that we discuss future additions to the article here as well as the article as it is already written. you encouraged an editor to write a page on welfare groups in angeles even after being shown that it would result in a clear conflict of interest. the article as it stands now does not need dispute resolution because there is no dispute. RodentofDeath 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What you're perceiving as my "animosity" toward you may be my reaction to your reflexive and specious attacks, like this one:

remove "became known as center for prostitution" as article already states it became known as culinary center.[1]

You have used this argument before, and anyone can spot this as illogical as the two things are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory. A child can spot this. It's a positively insulting argument.

If one behaves in an entirely destructive fashion for an extended period of time, and consistently gives bogus rationale for the behavior, they may find themselves taken less than seriously around here. I hope that is understandable. / edgarde 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be a tough job to specify the edits I'm refering to as there have been innumerable instances that the city had been personally attacked. So I'd rather leave the job to you.

You need not worry about it, Edgarde. Just to be objective, we'll be vigilant and continously be discussing the edits here. Moreso, expect everyone to be as neutral as possible. We have as much as good faith in Wikipedia as you do. Thanks! Ikabod08 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Ikabod08

Uh-oh! As much as I want to stay in between these 2 bickering folks, I would have to agree with Rodent regarding which step to take in resolving a dispute. It certainly is way better to discuss it here first before anything goes out of hand again. Edgarde, no offense meant but it appears that you're leaning towards Susan who we all know and was proven that she had some history here in mudthrowing against Angeles. Don't get me wrong but I'm trying my best not to take side here but it doesn't take pain sometimes to go back and read the previous edits done by Susan....and I want you to judge. And yes, I'm attacking the contents of her edits, not Susan, per se. Ikabod08 02:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

The discussion is what is out of hand. And RodentofDeath has already resumed edit-warring,[2] which I presume will be continued by other IP users shortly, as often happens after talk page interactions like tonite's.

This entire section of this talk page is non-specific attacks on the edits of one editor, all insinuating that editor has an agenda to cause harm to Angeles City. Not one edit is specified, but several straw man arguments are made. These are a personal attacks.

Your statement she had some history here in mudthrowing against Angeles is also a personal attack. Not one edit is mentioned.

And 69.132.180.4 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), your history of deleting citations quotes also suggests you are not all that neutral in this discussion.[3]

There has been lots of repetitive discussion on this page, almost all of it attacking the same editor. Further repetition of this will not be productive. / edgarde 03:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, i have seen your attempts to link me to vandalism by other people before. all proven false. its funny that your perception is that when i correct something wrong with the article it is "edit warring" but when you revert the article it is not. also, its daytime here in the philippines so "tonight" would not be very accurate. as far as not one edit being mentioned for susan's mudslinging angeles i have a hard time believing you are serious. do you really need the history pointed out to you where she repeatedly kept calling angeles a "slum city" and said 150,000 of the 280,000 residents are prostitutes? our "attacks" (as you call it) on this blatantly false information are the only thing keeping this article accurate. RodentofDeath 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are instructions on how to produce a diff. Please demonstrate the edits where these things were said.

All you've demonstrated is that you are willing to edit war and villify. Your refusal to do anything else, despite being given alternatives, despite the amount of time and energy you have for non-productive activity, demonstates you cannot back up your accusations.

You have nothing. / edgarde 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ending the edit war

There appears to be something of an edit war going over this paragraph:

Since the early days of Clark Air Base, Angeles City has become known as a center for prostitution. This industry increased greatly after the end of World War II.

As far as I can tell, there are several relaible sources backing up this assertion:

The city grew up around the huge US Clark Air Base and, although the base closed in 1992, prostitution is still the only industry in town.
When the Manila local government attempted to close down the sex industry in central Manila, many of the businesses moved to Angeles. Once the site of a major US army base, it seems that Australians have taken over this thriving entertainment and prostitution centre
The country's top five spots for child prostitution all have more than their fair share of foreign visitors: Metro Manila, Angeles City, Puerto Galera in Mindoro province, Davao and Cebu.
Angeles City, two hours north of Metro Manila, is the home of the most organized sex industry in the Philippines. Thousands of sex tourists from all over the world go there to look for cheap sex, much of it with under age minors. Some go looking for children younger than 12. It is estimated that 60,000 children are exploited annually in this business in the Philippines.

All of these support the assertion that Angeles is a major hub for prostitution, especially child, and that it is in no way "similar" to other cities its size. Do you have any reason to dispute these, or do you have another objection to the section? --Haemo 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

my edit stated "like other cities of its size angeles city has prostitutes" and that in no way describes the amount of prostitutes in angeles. it states very clearly that angeles has prostitutes. cities of similar size have prostitutes. the opinion that it is a major child prostitution hub is NOT supported by reliable sources. there are estimates ranging from 500 prostitutes in angeles to 150,000. most of them are outrageous estimates such as the salvation army claiming there are 150,000 prostitutes in a city of 280,000 people.

since the degree of prostitution is no longer discussed by my edit it seems that making individual responses to the level of prostitution questioned here a bit unnecessary but in the interest of cooperation i will be happy to discuss the citations given for the currently discussed section of the article. let me know if you require more information or citations.

citation 1[4] do you wish me to list all the other industries in town to prove that there are other industries or would you rather just look further down the article to see there are some? there are other industries in town. it is one of the fastest growing areas of the country. obviously the citation stating prostitution is the only industry is not reliable. yet there is more. the article claims that "girls (in the bar) look as young as 12 or 13" which is completely false. all the girls in the clubs are over 18. they all have licenses from the city and need to prove their age to the NBI (philippine FBI) to get clearance and be fingerprinted before starting work. they also need to go to a doctor weekly for checkups. i am sure the doctor knows the difference between a 12 year old and an 18 year old. another claim, "Richard owns all the clubs around here" is in direct conflict with the citation stating 80% of the bar owners are australian since richard is irish. the article shows it is biased with "(police) arrested Mr Agnew last August after raiding one club, the Blue Nile, and discovering six girls aged between 11 and 13". the article later admits charges were dropped. the problem is that the six girls claimed to be between 11 and 13 were all over 18 and the writer must have known this in order to know that the charges were dropped. yet it was still printed that 6 underage girls were found when the facts are that they were all over 18. more bias is shown with "He came back last Christmas on a 21-day single-entry visa and is still in the country, six months later" as if there is something wrong with this. its the normal procedure. you are issued a 21 day entry visa free on entering and if you stay longer you simply pay to extend the visa.

2.[5] this citation is one person's eye witness account of a conference they attended in manila. there seems to be no editorial oversight for this citation and it is from a primary source with no regular publication process. this does not conform to wikipedia standards. the citation is full of errors such as stating there are shuttle buses transporting passengers directly to angeles from the airport and that most of the bars are owned by australians. of course, its hard to prove something doesnt exist so coming up with a newspaper article saying there are no shuttle buses is impossible. please come up with something independent that says they do exist. all the bars are owned by filipinos. as stated in the philippine constitution, no foreigner can own land or own more than 40% of any business. so all the businesses are majority owned by filipinos. this citation contains false information, is not a reliable source and its claims can not be independently verified.

3.[6] this citation's writer also claims that 75% of the prostitutes in angeles are children. if anyone thinks this could even possibly be true feel free to comment and we can discuss this further. however, i think its clear this citation is not a source of reliable information.

4.[7] this citation is on a website that has an open posting policy. their policy is here [8]. when i first read this citation i actually started laughing out loud at its contents. it claims, among other outrageous things, that AIDS was prevalent during the vietnam war. it is clearly a work of fiction unless you think he actually interviewed the guy with the beer gut and unshaven face. at least the fictional story has a happy ending.

does anyone wish to stick to the claims that the above citations provided are accurate and reliable?? RodentofDeath 10:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to the above

You seem to be confused about a number of points. First of all, saying "like other cities its size, Angeles has prostitutes" is a leading sentence - it implies, though it doesn't directly state, that prostitution is just one of those things; otherwise, why mention other cities at all? Any English speaker who reads this sentence will assume that prostitution is not in anyway noteworthy in Angeles city – which is certainly not the case.

Next you assert that the statement that "Angeles is a major prostitution hub" is not backed up by reliable sources - and proceed to try and explain why the follow sources are not reliable. However, again you appear confused on this account:

[9]. Firstly, you claim that "the citation stating prostitution is the only industry is not reliable" – it's readily apparent from the article in question that the term is an idiom, like "the only game in town". Furthermore, we do not use that statement, since it requires context to be understood. Next, you state that "girls (in the bar) look as young as 12 or 13" which is completely false and that all the girls in the clubs are over 18 - I don't see how their age has anything to do with how they look; it doesn't say they are 12 or 13, it says they look 12 or 13. Thirdly, you state that another claim, "Richard owns all the clubs around here" is in direct conflict with the citation stating 80% of the bar owners are australian since he is Irish - however, this article never makes this claim; rather it says that "[Richard] runs a string of bars and clubs in Fields Avenue that cater to Western sex tourists" and "Richard owns all the clubs around here," said a floor manager and finally "Richard and I run all these clubs with an Irish guy," he said.. It never says that he's Irish, or that he runs all the clubs in town; rather, that he runs a large number of clubs in a particular part of town - something which is not at all at odds with the statement given; given that he's Australian. With respect to the arrest, the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence - your inference that it was because the girls were not, in fact, underage is unsupported by the article; it's your own inference, given that dismissal is different from dropping charges. Finally, you state that "He came back last Christmas on a 21-day single-entry visa and is still in the country, six months later" is evidence of "bias" - claiming that it is normal, and that he would simply pay to extend it. Again, there is no evidence of inaccuracy on the part of the article, nor is there evidence that he ever paid to extend the Visa. Your reading of this article appears to be confused, and really has no bearing on whether or not this is a reliable source - the article does not cite any of the material you find contentious, nor does it attempt to use it in any way.

##[10] Your reading of this article is seriously flawed - this is not one person's eye witness account of a conference they attended in manila, it is part of a Parliament of Australia Official Inquiry; it's hard to get more reliable than that. You allege various factual errors, and ask for an independent source for some of the claims - this is prima facie absurd; you bring no evidence that the allegations made in the government report are false, and simply accuse it of being "unreliable" with no basis. Government inquiries have multiple levels of oversight, and are among the most reliable type of sources.

1. [11] You claim this article "writer also claims that 75% of the prostitutes in angeles are children" - again, this is not true; they report that Susan Pineda, head of the group Pro-Women Action, says this. You have no reason to expect that this isn't a reliable source.
2. [12] You assert that this isn't a reliable source, citing that it has open posting guidelines. However, from the very page you linked, it specifically states that they have an editorial board which "shall correct inaccurate posts, i.e. posts containing incorrect information" - thus specifically meeting reliable source guidelines.

Your arguments for why these sources are not reliable are in no way compelling, and in many cases rife with errors of inference or comprehension. Your proposed addition to the article is misleading, and does not address the situation which multiple reliable sources attest is far from trivial. --Haemo 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm kind of confused here. Is Haemo the same person as Susan or Edgarde? What made me think that? Well, it's because I haven't heard too much from her yet. I would hate to think though that she's using another code name to push her agenda here. Ikabod08 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Ikabod08

You really think I'm a sockpuppet? Really? I have over five thousand contributions on this encyclopedia alone. --Haemo 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. I'm a guy; see my user page) --Haemo 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should I see your user page? Is it as noteworthy for disparagers as saying "Olongapo and Angeles have the the highest Amerasian population in the Philippines? Ikabod08 Ikabod08

Haemo became involved from a request for a moderator. lets assume he is being impartial and use this opportunity to improve the article. RodentofDeath 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response - I do want to work together to get this sorted out. --Haemo 01:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

let me makes this clear, i do not wish to have references to prostitution removed from the article. i wish it to be presented in a way that is representative of the prostitution situation as it exists and prostitution does exist. by misrepresenting the current situation or overstating it harm is done not only to the community but also would divert time, effort and funds away from places where the could be used more effectively.

while i am tempted to make a response to accusations of my confusion and all of your individual analysis, such as your statement that richard agnew is australian and the article does not say he is irish (see "Mr Agnew, who was born in Larne, Northern Ireland"), that the inquiry citation is not based on one person's observations (see "she maintains that:") or your assertion that the article claiming AIDS was prevalent during the vietnam war is a reliable source, i feel this will not further enhance the article

angeles is now one of the most scrutinized places in the world when it comes to child prostitution. the government continually enhanced their laws and operations to protect children. let's just assume for a minute that filipinos love their children just like parents in every other part of the world. there is prostitution in angeles but even a little hint of child prostitution brings about serious consequences. in the last few weeks a disgruntled former employee made an accusation against one bar saying there was one underage girl working there. she may or may not have been a prostitute as not every girl in a bar is a prostitute but i digress. this one accusation resulted in not just bar but 4 bars being raided, management and hundreds of girls (believed to be up to 400) being carted off to manila packed like sardines into 4 large tour buses and held in jail for hours until each and every one of their ages were verified. they were then all released and no charges were filed as they were ALL OVER 18. while i would love to provide you with newspaper citations for this incident the newspapers very rarely include anything that might be perceived as an embarrassment to the police as this incident must be.

so let me know to what extent you wish to pursue the claims of credibility of the links as i still feel they are not credible. if you wish to get beyond that and work on a compromise for the current statement i have some thoughts. its important not overstate the problem. it might be best to use something more along the lines of actual arrests instead of women's groups and activist information. overstating the problem, as mentioned earlier, harms the community and diverts resources from needed areas. it probably also pisses of the locals who by nature are not as confrontational as myself and would in my estimation rather attempt to delete or blank the page than argue about it, even more so because it is written in english instead their native language. one last thing to note is that the philippines certainly is a different culture and forcing outsiders views and opinions on them is not generally a welcome thing. RodentofDeath 05:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay - how about this; propose a revision for the section here, and we'll discuss it. --Haemo 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

just a quick reply as i need to help my prostitute for the evening with her multiplication homework. (ok sorry. bad joke!!). my last suggestion seemed to be objected to for reasons of understating the numbers. let me see if we can work it from the nightlife/entertainment/go-go bar angle with some actual valid numbers and then say that some groups claim these are fronts for prostitution and let the reader decide for themselves. i think that might be a more accurate representation of all sides. RodentofDeath 09:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, let's start with this and see where it leads:

The Entertainment District of angeles city near the entrance of the former clark air base, which in the past was known as a place for filipinas to meet young american GIs and for prostitution, has transformed itself into a lively and mostly adult oriented tourist destination with well over 100 go-go bars, discos and world class restaurants employing thousands of locals. The area has many new hotels with still more being constructed along with several large condominium projects underway. some critics claim the go-go bars are fronts for illegal prostitution, including child prostitution. there have been at least two arrests and convictions of bar management that support this theory.

obviously citations would need to be added but i think we have several in the current wiki articles that will support this. i think this may be a more fair description of the area, past and present, and satisfies the need to get prostitution inserted into the article without the outrageously inflated accusations or blaming the americans that left 15 years ago for the current situation. feel free to edit or come up with your own versions for discussion. RodentofDeath 01:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A lot of old arguments here

RodentofDeath: let me makes this clear, i do not wish to have references to prostitution removed from the article.

Your conversion is recent. You have historically objected to any inclusion of this subject [13]. You routinely remove all mention of prostitution, [14] [15] [16] [17], this does not seem like an attempt to present the situation more accurately.

RodentofDeath: ...your assertion that the article claiming AIDS was prevalent during the vietnam war is a reliable source

Dismissing everything that can be connected to PREDA Foundation over a purported anachroninistic AIDS claim is an old argument, frequently repeated and never explained or made relevant,[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] but apparently based on this article[25]. You said you'd drop it if I answered you here,[26] which I did.

RodentofDeath: richard agnew is australian and the article does not say he is irish

This is also an old, oft-repeated argument. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] It was answered a few times, including here[35]

I'll let someone else consider the unsourced appeals to emotion where Filipinos love their children and react with hostility to outsiders' views and opinions. / edgarde 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, so much for compromise. it has now become clear that edguarde is more interested in personal attacks than improving the article. i guess that only leaves us with the option of re-hashing the same old arguments again much to my dismay.

your examples of me removing material show that i remove POORLY SOURCED material which you seem to be extremely and unnaturally attached to. my deletion had just as much to do with the "became known as a center" as it did the "prostitution" part but you refused to admit that angeles is actually known as a culinary center even though that is well sourced.

if you are going to quote me please do so correctly and dont mislead people. what i actually said was "are you saying preda and father shay are a reliable source of information and AIDS was prevalent during the vietnam war? a simple yes or no will suffice then we can move on". you clearly did not give a yes or no answer and tried, laughingly enough, to say the father shay's claim of AIDS being prevalent during the vietnam war was a typo!! the article that you claim is reliable source of information makes this claim. its really very simple. if AIDS was NOT prevalent during vietnam then the article is NOT a reliable source of information. do you wish to claim AIDS was prevalent or not?

if you insist on changing richard agnew's nationality please send him a new passport. "Agnew, who lives the life of a millionaire, moved to the Philippines seven years ago from Northern Ireland" and referring to his parents "The couple, who live on the outskirts of Larne in Ballygally"[36]

i do wish to thank you for showing me how to format the responses on the talk page better. this is very nice!! RodentofDeath 09:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments here are not personal attacks. I am replying to arguments made on this talk page about edits to the article. It happens that these arguments are posted repetitively by the same editor, who posts from your account.

I would apologize for not answering yes or no to a question formulated to contain both a truth and falsehood,[37] but actually I have no reason to be sorry about not complying with such an unreasonable requirement. It is unfortunate however that we will never stop hearing the PREDA canard, especially in places where PREDA Foundation is not relevant.

As I have said recently on this page, the repetition of discredited arguments is not productive. However, we seem condemned to hear the same arguments again and again. / edgarde 09:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

please keep an open mind. because you disagree with something does not mean it is discredited. many people, including myself, would probably find your explanation of a typo rather unconvincing. RodentofDeath 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's not rehash old bad blood - that's not productive at all. So, in the interests of getting somewhere productive, why doesn't someone float a a trial revision of a section which would go in the "Economy" section, retitled "Economy and society" about this topic? --Haemo 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

that actually sounds good. the only reluctance i have with that is it might be given undue weight to what really is a small portion of a large city with a good economy (despite the idiom cited). before we go writing this i think it might help everyone involved here if some background were provided on subject. i realize this would fall into the personal research category and am not saying it should be included in the article but in order to clear up some confusion about the situation here. i'll post this below. RodentofDeath 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point! Edgarde reiterated that I kept on harassing Susan when in fact I was actually attacking her edits, which were very personal, biased and opinionated. I was even asking if he would mind reading the said edits to at least help him weigh on this issue though he refused. Still I didn't want to think he's taking side with Susan. But then here comes Edgarde personally attacking Rodentofdeath, who, in fact, just wants to make this article more presentable. I don't get it, really. Ain't we practicing what we preach here? Ikabod08 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

in all fairness to edguarde, the complaints of harrassment may not have started with him. when i first started editing this article and the human trafficking article i was accused of stalking and harrassment by a different editor seeking help. he may simply be reacting to a complaint made to him. RodentofDeath 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] background for editors

in order to clear up what may be some false presumptions i thought i would give some background info on what we are discussing here. i'm not suggesting this info be input into the article as most of it would probably fall into the category of personal research but it may help other editors get a more clear picture of what we are discussing here.

Angeles has go-go bars. It has lots of them. i've seen estimates of about 200 but i think this is a bit inflated or may be including things like restaurants in the numbers. my personal guess is its somewhere near the 125 to 150 range. some organizations attempt to pass these off as brothels. almost all of the bigger and more popular bars are located on a very small stretch of road. this main area is probably less than 500m in length. interspersed with the bars are other things like hotels and restaurants. this area is usually described as The Entertainment District or Fields Avenue. actually, i think it is really field avenue but everyone adds the "s". i am assuming it was named for being adjacent to the entrance of the airfield. further away from the entertainment district the same road changes names to be perimeter road (now running along the perimter of the base). also it is called don juanico (not sure of the exact spelling).

sometimes owners will own just one bar and sometimes they will own several. among the groups that own several there are korean owners, american owners, german owners, british owners, irish owners and australian owners. the bars in the entertainment district tend to be slightly bigger and employ more girls. each bar may employee from around 30 girls up to slightly over 100 girls in this area. along perimeter road where the bars are smaller they probably employ about 15 girls, both dancers and waitresses or sometimes only waitresses. there is no nudity in the bars. the girls dance in bikinis. most bars have doorgirls outside the bar dressed in tight fitting uniforms calling customers into their bar. almost every business (i cant stress "every" enough) in the philippines, including 7-11, mcdonalds and local businesses have armed guards in front of their establishments. a large number of bars have them also but they are generally not armed. probably a good idea not to mix drunk people with guns in the vicinity. these may be the source of "the girls are kept there by armed guards" statements.

to give you an example of a bars procedures i will use one of the german bars as an example only because they havent been argued about yet and i am familiar with their policies as my fiance's cousin is a waitress there. generally speaking the bars make money by providing customers with something attractive to look at while they drink inflated priced beer. the current exchange rate is about 46 pesos to one dollar. a beer costs 85p. for comparison, in a store the same bottle of beer would be about 20p.

if a customer wishes to talk to a girl and spend a little time perhaps cuddling with her he can buy her a ladies drink. this is usually something such as sprite or iced tea in a wine glass. the girl gets a commission of 50p for selling a ladies drink on top of her normal salary which is in the 150p to 200p a day range. admittedly this is a very small amount of money when you convert to US dollars but i caution you that its not really accurate to do that. the correct context would be to keep her salary in the context of what the average filipino makes, which is in the 4000p to 5000p a month range. most workers here work 6 days a week.

now for the good stuff. this is where the accusations of prostitution come in. let me start off by saying that if a girl does not wish to sit with a customer she can refuse. this does happen but generally speaking the girls want a ladies drink unless the guy is very drunk, very rude or looks like he hasnt showered in a few days. age of the guy does not seem to be an important part of their decision process although race might be, depending on the girl. during the ladies drink the girl will often cuddle next to you, lean up against you and generally act like your girlfriend although kissing is not part of the deal. the happier she makes you the better her chance of getting a second ladies drink from you.

there have been various formulas for the following, which is generally referred to as a barfine, but this is how the current process is working. barfines are technically illegal and imply payment for sexual services. currently the girls have a quota of 12 ladies drinks a day. if they reach this quota they are free to leave the bar as their shift will now be considered finished. if you do the math you will see that ladies drinks are 150p, the girls gets 50p of that and the bar gets 100p. the 12 ladies drinks are 1200p in income. it is possible to pay the bar the 12 drinks all at once and the girl will be free to leave with you if she chooses. this is what was quoted as "buying a girl" (which brings images of slavery to mind) in one of the citations.

now i hope to make it clear that not all the girls working in the bars are prostitutes. certainly some girls will provide sexual services for money if you take them out from their work. there are other girls that will go home with you for "sleeping only" which means cuddling and kissing but no sex. some girls will only go out for "barhopping only" which means she will go with you to other bars and be your trophy girl. if you ask me its a bit like bringing a bucket of sand to the beach but apparently some guys like this.

as far as the accusations of underage girls in the clubs its simply not true. in order to work in a bar you need a health certificate and your license must be available for inspection. the license is a small pink card (sometimes accompanied with a green health insurance card) usually worn near the hip of the girl or worn on a necklace type string. its probably similar in design and size to many company ID cards everyone is familiar with. it contains their picture, official government stamps, their birth date and for some bizarre reason their home address. in order to obtain this license to work in a bar the girls must go to the NBI (philippine FBI) and get clearance. they need to register their original birth certificate and get fingerprinted. if all is in order the NBI will clear them for work. naturally, they do not clear underage girls. these rules get refined from time to time. i believe the fingerprinting was introduced in the last few years. certainly all the safeguards to prevent underage workers in the bars that are present now were not present back in the early 90's when many underage accusations were made. the girls need to go to weekly checkups in order to maintain the validity of their license. Virgins, which account for probably 10 to 25% of the girls depending on the bar, need to get checked up only once a month. their license number coincidently always starts with the letter V. i know many virgins working in the bars that are well into their 20s and one i know will celebrate her 30th birthday next month. she is still waiting, as many girls here do, for the right foreigner to come and sweep her off her feet. as far one reporter saying in a citation an 18 year old girl appears to be 12 it is clear that they need vision correction. while asian girls generally appear younger and smaller than western girls it is very difficult to look prepubescent even for an asian 18 year old.

so i hope this brings into focus more clearly the situation we are talking about here. you can see why the estimates of the numbers of prostitutes vary greatly as their really is no way to judge who will have sex for money and who won't. some estimates simply assume all bar girls are prostitutes and other estimates are just so outrageous that one wonders what color the sky is in their world. RodentofDeath 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revision for section

Okay, here's what the current one reads:

The economy of Angeles City has accelerated in the past decade, driven by advances in global communication technology, the establishment of fine restaurants and luxary hotels/resorts and the finishing of a road, such as the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway, that has tremendously improved trade and transport. It has a cottage that includes rattan furniture production. It also includes the production of coconuts, charcoal and briquettes. Call Centers in Clark, namely AOL, CyberCity, and Sutherland, and other American IT industries are major employers as well. The establishment of a number of shopping malls also fueled the city's economy, including SM City - Clark, Robinson's Place, Jenra Grand Mall, Nepo Mall, Saver's Mall and the proposed Ayala Shopping Mall, next to the City Hall.

Here's RodentofDeath's proposed revision:

The Entertainment District of angeles city near the entrance of the former clark air base, which in the past was known as a place for filipinas to meet young american GIs and for prostitution, has transformed itself into a lively and mostly adult oriented tourist destination with well over 100 go-go bars, discos and world class restaurants employing thousands of locals. The area has many new hotels with still more being constructed along with several large condominium projects underway. some critics claim the go-go bars are fronts for illegal prostitution, including child prostitution. there have been at least two arrests and convictions of bar management that support this theory.

I would try and split the difference:

The economy of Angeles City has accelerated in the past decade, driven by advances in global communication technology, the establishment of fine restaurants and luxary hotels/resorts and the finishing of a road, such as the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway, that has tremendously improved trade and transport. The entertainment district of Angeles City has also been revitalized. Located near the entrance of the former Clark Air Force Base, it was was known as a place for Filipinas to meet young american GIs and for prostitution, but now boasts an adult-oriented tourist destination with go-go bars, discos and restaurants employing thousands of locals. The area also has many hotels, and a number of large development projects are still underway. However, the area still draw criticism, with many human rights groups claiming the go-go bars are fronts for a variety of illegal activities, especially child prostitution. There have been a number of arrests and convictions of bar management that support this theory, along with a series of inquiries by various NGOs and governments.

Any more suggestions? --Haemo 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Angeles is known for its world-class furniture business and IT industry. Aren't we supposed to include the rest of what it previously states there in the Economy section? I believe they're also worth mentioning in this section. Thanks! Ikabod08 02:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Ikabod08

seems we're getting someplace to me. i'd be interested to hear any objections. certainly Ikabod has a point that it is more known for the furniture industry than for prostitution although not many people find furniture news articles riveting. there may not be as much press on that. i personally would rather see the one line as "There have been some arrests and convictions" than "There have been a number of arrests and convictions" since the number of documented cases seems to be as low as two in the last ten years. i have no problem with the "series of inquiries" part. that looks reasonable. RodentofDeath 05:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's get some sources and citations for these different things - especially the furniture thing. Just list below one ref for each fact, or so, I've asserted in the paragraph, and we'll work on what to include, and how. --Haemo 06:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's one link for the furniture thing: http://www.tourism.gov.ph/explore_phil/place_details.asp?content=thingstodo&province=12. :) Ikabod08 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

[edit] flying eye hospital and preda

the flying eye hospital has been to angeles a total of one time. does that make it notable? also, my business in new jersey provides distance learning to approximately 500 people so i can get it listed here too? actually, now that i think about it wouldnt just about any NGO provide you with information that can be considered "distance learning"?? i just called the US embassy a few minutes ago and learned quite a few things. does that make them active in angeles too?

PREDA is not active in angeles and has not been for a few years. they are located over an hour and a half away in Olongapo.

lets be honest here. there is an agenda being pushed to get certain organizations listed here to further a documented smear campaign against angeles. i would caution editors to be wary of information introduced into this article, where it comes from and what it's purpose of being put here is. RodentofDeath 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. For the first time I'm hearing reasons not to include these specific organizations. I'm pretty sure it's the first time I've heard a reason other than susan bryce is DESTROYING ANGELES!!!. / edg ☺ ★ 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

it was discussed before here (and probably a few other places). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angeles_City/Archive_4#More_over-inflated_opinions_removed. RodentofDeath 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

so what's this all about, edgarde? why put all these NGOs in the first place? if you wish to put these orgs then why can't we come up with the same thing with all the cities' entries in Wikipedia to be fair? what do you think, fellow Pinoy? tayo tayo na lang mga pinoy, kailangan pa bang magsiraan??? hope you get that message right and i said it tagalog as there are words that are better said in the dialect. to be honest with you, this NGO thing is not gonna help this as it's gonna stir another bickering between Susan Bryce and the people of Angeles. just being honest...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.173.232 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Photos of Angeles

I have around 12,000 photos of Angeles, some dating back as far as 40 years that were passed down from my mother. Around 800 are of the mount pinatubo explosion, i was one of the few that stayed behind and i have almost every area covered in these pics. I believe it is probably the pargest historical collection of photos in Angeles. If it 100% meets everyones approval, im thinking of adding them all to a website and ading the link and a short paragraph about the collection here on Wikipedia. There is nothing controversial here, and RodentofDeath can even write the paragraph if he likes and ill give everyone 100% veto on any photo that dont want shown. This is an important collection and I hope we can get some bipartison support on this project if people want help. Kind Regards.Susanbryce 20:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, Susan. How would we get to see those pics? Please do so to make this entry a better one. Enough of the prostitution thing, please? Maybe we can assign Rodent to make captions for them. How about that, Rodent? ;-) Ikabod08 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

[edit] So another disparaging campaign?

So what can you say about this: Angeles City has become known as a center for prostitution, drug dealership, gang activity, and illegal gambling[29]. This industry increased greatly after the end of World War II.

So you made Angeles look worse than ever before? Before it used to be a center for prostitution, but look now! You are generalizing that it's also a center for drug dealership, gang activity and illegal gambling just because there was one article that featured the said activity going on in the city.

And then in the economy section: There is also a large amount of casinos and bars that dot the area, formerly they were built for American servicemen based in the former Clark Air Base who wanted to gamble and drink. Because of this it has been know as a "sin city" for many Filipinos.

As if not enough mention about the prostitution and all the brothels mentioned in the NGO section, people seem not to be satisfied and pulling down the economy of the city. Don't you think it's not gonna affect the economy and making investors think twice in putting business here? Why do you single out Angeles when these things do happen in Manila, Olongapo and Cebu as well? You think you're being fair enough and not stepping on anybody here?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.173.232 (talk • contribs) engaging in yet another disparaging campaign, and probably not seeing the irony of this, 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Loving Care Street Kids Foundation provides offers free meals to the thousands of children left homeless on the streets on Angeles city.

Are you sure there are THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN LEFT HOMELESS on the streets of Angeles? With only a population of 260,000, do you think this is exaggerrated? Maybe you're talking about Metro Manila figures here...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.173.232 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Loving Care provides slightly over 100 meals a day. its nowhere near the thousands claimed above. its 3 meals a day so there are some repeat visitors during the day. also, the main contributors to Loving Care Street Kids Foundation (and several other charities in the area) are the bars in the area that some people here are trying so desperately to link with human trafficking and get closed down. RodentofDeath 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] just wanna copy and paste this on the header...not sure where this came from but just a reminder...

Re Susan Bryces lies on the sex slave camps of Angeles - Friday, July 20, 2007 Cop chief denies sex slave camp in Angeles By Reynaldo G. Navales

so who wrote the "flogging rodentofdeath's dead horse"?? that isnt' assuming good faith or being civil. you should be ashamed of yourself. RodentofDeath 15:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh I'm sorry. Thanks for holding me to such high standards. / edg ☺ ★ 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Is that what being civil and assuming good faith to you, edgarde? Yet you're kind of reprimanding other folks who seemed to be not so friendly with Susan because of her bashing Angeles with her so-called personal agenda against the city. Hmmm... am I smelling partiality? Ikabod08 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

Once again, I'm terribly, terribly sorry for interrupting your campaign of personal attacks. / edg ☺ ★ 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

where is the personal attack? if someone is running a smear campaign to the point where it gets the attention of a federal senator senator then has newspaper articles in print its not personal. it is part of the overall picture. a very big part. can you imagine somebody saying there were 150,000 prostitutes in pennington, nj with their smear campaign?? the campaign then gets senator clinton's attention enough that she writes a press release and the media picks up the story?? personal are attacks are things like "your mother wears army boots" not news stories. this is news directly related to this article. the fact that the person in the news story is also trying to edit this page just verifies the story is true. RodentofDeath 04:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone could read this page and not observe personal attacks. Would you consent to a Request for Comment on this? If the result of that Request for Comment is that the constant accusation and invective directed at one editor are in fact personal attacks, would you then refrain from doing so, and stop defending other editors' comments? / edg ☺ ★ 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

if someone has a documented agenda then how is saying so a personal attack? you can have anyone comment on it you wish. the fact is that the editor here has a conflict of interest and has had newspaper articles written about the smear campaign they are running. RodentofDeath 07:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What else do you guys want?

Since the early days of Clark Air Base, Angeles City has become known as a center for prostitution. This industry increased greatly after the end of World War II.[10][11][12][13][14]

We let this line appear on the History section of this entry, despite for being infamous...yet, some people around would still prefer to smirch more. If you think your bashful comments are not gonna help the city, would you please just stop and push your personal agenda elsewhere, not here in this medium where we're supposed to educate people. We're all pinoys (I doubt if Susan is) so wag tayong magsiraan sana. I hope someone here believes in karma. God bless you all!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.173.232 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. We would like you to do the following:

Stop making personal attacks against other Wikipedia editors.
Link articles instead of copy/pasting.
Use edit summaries when you edit.
Read the Talk Page guidelines.
Sign your comments, preferably having first logged in to you user account.
Refrain from making non-english comments on english Wikipedia. If you don't know the english words for a term, ask Wikipedia:Embassy for a translation.

The actions that you persist in despite repeated talk page warnings do not help the article. Nor does ranting on the Talk page, for that matter. / edg ☺ ★ 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We let this line appear on the History section of this entry

One more thing. You never "let" anybody do anything on Wikipedia. Your permission is not required, and your refusal to participate in a civil fashion will not win you any support. / edg ☺ ★ 01:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

this may be why you don't see many filipinos arguing points here. they are not native english speakers. i'm fairly certain that by saying "let" they meant they would not argue the point. RodentofDeath 05:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead sentence

I removed "first class, highly urbanized" from the lead discription, as it seems that the wikified link seems to sufice. Is their a source that describes this city as such? I admitt that I am editing this article from a limited knowledge of this part of the world but I am also NPOV. Thanks! --Tom 12:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's how all entries of the other cities in the Philippines are described and Angeles has been classified as first class, highly urbanized based on its annual income. Thanks! Ikabod08 14:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

We should add a coma? Is that sourceable? I haven't looked at the other cities but I will. What is "first class". I will not revert for now but will research this further. Thanks for your response, --Tom 15:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can read Cities of the Philippines. It's something you can read to know more about the classification of the Philippine cities. Ikabod08 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

I sourced this to gov.ph.[38] Added "locally classfied as" language to clue readers that Angeles is not being compared to Paris, cf. more widely-known international standards such as Global city. / edg ☺ ★ 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work and thank you! --Tom 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced sections

Incidentally, most of the new information going into this article is (disputes aside) well-sourced. The mostly-unsourced sections currently include History, Economy and Notable Angeleños. If someone could take the time to Google up some sources for the statements in those sections, we could remove the ugly {{Refimprove}} tag. / edg ☺ ★ 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK...will do the job for the Notable Angeleños and Economy section. Thanks! Ikabod08 00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

Thank you sir! / edg ☺ ★ 02:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Edgarde, I'm finally done adding well-sourced articles to the history, economy and notable angeleños sections!!! Whew! Hope we could now remove that ugly tag above. Thanks much! :) Ikabod08 02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

Nice work. {{Refimprove}} removed. / edg ☺ ★ 10:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casino city spam link

as a resident, i have never heard of angeles being called the "las vegas of the philippines". i was wondering if anyone else has heard of this or knows of any more references other than something that seems to be an advertisement for Casino Filipino. RodentofDeath 16:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is spam. If it gets re-inserted, kill it dead! / edg ☺ ★ 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we just remove the Welfare and NGO section?

Can we just remove the Welfare and NGO section since there's not much quite a significant number of it to state here in this section? I don't find it relevant at all if we only see 3 of them in the list. Any thoughts? Ikabod08 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

i certainly have no problem with it. the welfare section was inserted earlier with an apparent agenda to make angeles look bad. it had phrases like "there are an enormous amount of welfare groups in this slum city due to the brutal sex slavery trade here." Once we removed the distortions and lies this section no longer seems notable. i realize there's quite a bit of archived talk section but perhaps you will find this part interesting... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angeles_City/Archive_4#More_over-inflated_opinions_removed. RodentofDeath 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the link, Rodent! Quite interesting and pretty apparent indeed why a certain person put up such a section there. now, who's in charge of removing the NGO section, which IMHO has no significance at all. Could you? Thanks! Ikabod08 14:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Ikabod08

[edit] Non-Angeles based orgs keep on being added

I am very much positive that this has been discussed before. It's been proven that ORBIS, PREDA, salvation army, etc. are all not based in this city. We had a consensus here way way back. Let's just stick with that as I don't want anyone else assume again and again that Susan keeps on holding a smear campaign against this city.

We would rather have Susan just add the historical pics of Angeles, as she promised 3 months ago (please scroll above to see her previous post). I wanna make myself believe her claim to have 12,000 photos of the city, some as old as 40 years. Susan, could you show us those pics you call "un-controversial" instead? Ikabod08 (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

due to an arbitration hearing[39] i will not comment on claims of posting pics not followed through on.

to answer your question, yes, the consensus was that only NGOs based in Angeles would be added. not every NGO that has have traveled through angeles or visited one time.RodentofDeath (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)