Talk:Francis Escudero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Francis Escudero article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for Francis Escudero: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: images/pics from the office of Congressman Escudero thru reachus@chizescudero.com
  • Other: references/citations

Contents

[edit] Significant role/contributions

Help needed on the significant roles and contributions Cong. Escudero has made, particularly as member of the opposition bloc, Pres. Arroyo's impeachment bid, etc. --Pinay06 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official Website

I've added Rep. Chiz's official website. However, please go easy on this one when citing this as a source: only the biography is (nearly) complete, as do the list of bills authored, and most of the pages are still template-level pages (meaning, they don't have contents). --- Tito Pao 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request protection of Francis Escudero

This article has been the object of a lot of edits by anon and new editors. These new and anon editors have persistently included statements that are not cited, or if they are, these are improperly cited, are against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Until such anons subscribe to these policies, this article will be the object of unscrupulous edits which will be potentially harmful to the subject and his current political career in the Philippines. Hence, the urgency and importance of protection.--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for unprotection will have to be made by editors when new developments related to Francis Escudero, especially re his current political career, take place. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) I'm writing this in a hurry, so this means that my thoughts might be incomplete at this point of the edit. I'll just add more thoughts once I have time in my hands.

Full disclosure: I was the one who requested for this article's protection, upon Pinay's suggestion. Here are the edits that led to the prot request:

  • Diff #2 and Diff #3 - Not content with the revert, this same user Gr0kk3r reintroduced the same statement (Diff #2) to the article...but with reference tags. Realizing that he forgot to sign in to his account (the previous edit was made under an anoymous IP), he signed in again, then added an additional statement (", having known the ex-president as far back as the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II.") and a "source". This source, which I would have expected to be a news article or a write-up, turns out to be an opinion column. Not surprisingly, it was reverted anew.
  • Diff #4 Not happy (again) with the revert, user Gr0kk3r reintroduced his material, using the same text and the same "source" (i.e. the opinion article).

It is interesting to note that this user needed several edits before he could reintroduce his material when he could have done it in one go, courtesy of the article's History page. I had a feeling that this user is a new WP user.

It is not my intent to discuss politics here, but in the light of Philippine current events, I was expecting more edits for the biographies of candidates for Senator, ever since the Philippine Daily Inquirer made a short report about some candidates having their own WP article. Note that these edits were made one day after the PDI article was published, which may suggest that whoever did this pounced on the next available opportunity to make his/her desired edit to the article

I requested the protection on the following grounds:

  1. The "source" is suspect. I had a feeling (as shown by the reintroduction of questionable material) that the editor in question deliberately searched for an article from a well-known news provider (in this case, ABS-CBN). However, the problem was the source in question is an op-ed article; I would have allowed the source if it was a news article or a feature article, but the op-ed section? I think that an op-ed article, even if it cites certain verifiable facts, are in itself biased towards an opinion (that's why it's an op-ed article, to start with), and introducing such sources may harm the neutrality of any article. (See also below)
  2. The edits violate NPOV policy. The editor in question is pushing a POV by making a link between Francis Escudero and former President Marcos (through Rep. Escudero's father) by using a non-source. It appears to me that, given that the campaign period for senators has just started, the edits would appear to be an attempt to discredit Rep. Escudero at this time of the electoral season. I don't care if the editor in question is an anti-Marcos activist, a sympathizer of the administration, a hater of Rep. Escudero or simply a stubborn vandal, but nothing could be more suspect than the timing of the questioned edits. Why only now when the same questioned material could have been presented way, way before Rep. Escudero filed his certificate of candidacy?
  3. The edits are in conflict with WP:BLP I'm not sure what is/are the exact reason/s for Ate P (Pinay06) to cite WP:BLP, but from my understanding of the policy, no unsourced negative information should be used in an article about a living person. In the context given in the preceding items---that is, the "source" cited is in itself biased towards a specific POV---the edits in question may be in violation of the policy, and the last thing we'd want to avoid is libelling Rep. Escudero or any of the other senatoriables. (Just so that everyone may know: I checked up on the other articles about the other candidates for senator...so far, the only article that received a similar unhelpful edit was on Sen. Ralph Recto, but the edits were simple vandalism that do not need admin intervention nor protection, at least not like what happened to this article)

These are some of the issues that I expect to encounter once the article gets unprotected and the editor in question resumes his/her edits to the article. --- Tito Pao 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO if those statements would have a place in Wikipedia, it should appear in the Sonny Escudero article, not here. --Howard the Duck

[edit] Controversial Quotes

"I can only cite myself as an example, Mr. Speaker, but mula po nung natapos ako nung high school hindi ko pa nagamit ang Calculus, hindi ko pa ho nagamit and Trigonometry, hindi ko pa ho nagamit and Algebra, iyung Geometry, sa bilyar ko lang nagamit." -Francis Escudero, privilege speech about abolishing Algebra, Chemistry and other subjects in High School Source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.60.243.44 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

(resetting indent) I understand that there were some concerns about the suggested inclusion of this quote in the article. Here are my thought about this quote...I may ramble a bit, but please bear with me since I have contrasting opinions about this quote.

First, we can not deny that Congressman Chiz said this, whether or not we hate the idea that he did say that. More correctly, this quote was sourced from the official records of the House of Representatives. There is no point hiding this fact. But that's besides the point; to me, the bigger question, even if the reference is strong, is...what for? What purpose does it serve to include this one in the article? (Read on.)

Second, most of the quotes that are currently positive quotes. At the risk of painting a hagiography of Chiz, especially at this time when the elections are nearly two months away, we cannot hide the fact that he did say that, and anything quotable about him can be quoted. If anyone would make a case for balancing the article a little bit, then I have no objections including this in the article. In that case, we might as well start digging into the transcripts of every congressmen and senators and find similar quotes and have it included in their respective Wikipedia articles. I'm sure some senator or congressman could have said something more egregious than this one. (Of course, assuming that we do it without having to violate the BLP policy.)

Third, because of the nature of their work, legislators enjoy the privilege of legislative immunity while Congress is in session (except in very extreme cases, such as Cong. Jalosjos). I'm arising this point because as a member of the Lower House of Congress, Cong. Escudero cannot be sued, even if what he said borders on slander or libel. Now, I know that this quote isn't libellous or slanderous, but bear in mind that because of this privilege, his colleagues could have said something worse. If anyone would want to include something as mild as this one (at least, "mild" in my opinion), then we might as well start hunting for something that smacks of libel or slander from a congressman or a senator's mouth but for which, because of parliamentary immunity, he or she cannot be sued---and then include this on their respective Wikipedia articles. But I can't see the reason why anyone would consider doing this...well, maybe not this anonymous user.

Fourth, a single quote does not necessarily destroy a person. We are all humans, and we all make mistakes at certain points in our lives. Let's face it: deliberately or not, we may have said something stupid or outright outrageous. And we know that other people in current politics and in history have made similar mistakes (you can even come up with examples much, much worse than this). IBM's founder said that there is only enough market for a dozen computers in the whole world; unless you're living in a cave, we all know that this is very wrong. Bill Gates once said that 640 kilobytes of memory was all that is needed for personal computing; nowadays, 256 megabytes of memory is considered a minimum. Hitler said, in his various diatribes, that the Nazi Reich will live a thousand years; we know that he was 900+ years short of his goal. Bill Clinton said that he inhaled but did not smoke, and he even went far as asking what is "is". And how many people said and believed that the Titanic was unsinkable?

And lastly...at this time of the year when the elections are about two months away, why is this anonymous user pushing for the inclusion of this article? Why pick on him? Is this user merely cherry picking to destroy Chiz Escudero knowing that voters would come to this article to do their own homework before writing in their kodigos ("cheat sheets")? What about GMA's "I am sorry" and "I will not seek re-election"? What about Miriam's quote about jumping off an airplane? If these quotes were not included in their respective articles, would this same user include it, even if they were from the other side of the political camp?

Since my impression is that there is no clear consensus whether this quote should be included or not, I have an alternative proposal: delete the quotes section. Anyway, we can make a case for Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate repository of information.

If people would disagree with this proposal, then it's better to have these quotes merged within the article (and not as a separate section, as is the case now) to its proper context. Either way, we won't have a problem with people singling out the quotes. Merging the quotes within the artitcle will also make the article more like an encyclopedia article and less of a grade school/high school autograph notebook.

In the end, the bigger question to me is why include this quote---what purposes does it serve? To derail his election campaign? To paint a not so flattering image of Francis Escudero the Anti-Academics? Why focus on this single quote which, in all likelihood, not many people may have even heard of? (That is, other than from blogs and from this article...remember that Internet use in the Philippines is not as widespread as in, say, the US, in Japan or in Europe.) Why not focus on his legislative agenda, on his political track record, on his achievements and (if any) misdeeds? Personally, I'd like to know what laws Chiz Escudero has authored and supported. I'd also like to know where he stands on critical issues such as education, poverty, unemployment and corruption (among others). (To this end, is this quote consistent with his political agenda as a whole? If not, then why include it?) Also, what has he done as a member of the community? What are his personal and public achievements? These and other similar things are what I'm looking for in an article about a current politician. And given enough information, these are the changes I'd like to make to this article and to other other articles about politicians.

But, of course, to do that, we'll need to make an unprotection request. Which is what I am planning to do in the very near future, since this article about a Senatorial candidate is the only one that is protected. I honestly believe that it's about time I do this. By this time, the persistent POV vandal (who kept on inserting the information about Sonny Escudero which had nothing to do with Chiz at all) could have given up in vain. If no one would object by this Sunday, I will request unprotection of this article. --- Tito Pao 06:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this quote even notable? Also, I'd say to un-protect this and "test the waters." --Howard the Duck 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Titopao, I couldn't have done this as best as you had! Kudos! As for the unprotect - it's long overdue now! I got to do a lot of stuff, though, while it is protected! LoL! Sunday sounds cool to me. (N.B. where have you been? Bangkok? LoL! ) --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected edit

{{editprotected}} Please change {{references-small}} to {{reflist}} please, per this discussion and the near completion of orphaning by ^demonBot2. Thanks, ^demon[omg plz] 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Done :) —Xyrael / 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re Chiz' statements on ANC's 2007 Senatorial Forum

This is not the exact but if memory serves me right, he said that Edsa Dos shouldn't have happened, it wasn't the right thing to do. The show is replayed M/W/F at 6pm so if anybody wants to catch it, last chance is on Friday. I can't since I have finals this week. Berserkerz Crit 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect request made...

...by me. It's about time. Let's keep on watching this article, as well as those of other candidates. --- Tito Pao 07:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Titopao! Yeah, it is about time! Let us just tighten our watch! with ALL of them... --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 08:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Since this is the English Wikipedia, I'd say we use English in talk pages, it's discourteous for those who don't know the Tagalog language. --Howard the Duck 11:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm taking to you, but I don't stalk, I just snoop around. And please type in English, no one would know what "sino ka?" (translation: "who are you?") meant. It's for the betterment of Wikiland, since Chiz is getting famous and more foreigners might come here. --Howard the Duck 06:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ate P cool it, please...after all, we are on the English Wikipedia, and this page happens to be outside the Tambayan's scope; there's a greater probability that this article and the talk page will be visited by non-Filipinos.. I'd like to look at it as a friendly reminder. --- Tito Pao 06:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In deference ONLY to you Titopao, my dear dear friend, I have hidden my message/s in <!-- --> --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There has been some real nasty vandalism on Chiz's page, check it out: it's from 203.111.237.41.

what can we do about preventing this?

—-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, persistent vandal 203.111.237.41 !!! —-— .:Seth Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted some of the vandalisms a few days ago. As of this date and time, the article hasn't had new edits, so unless I'm reading the article wrong all remaining vandalisms have been eliminated from the article and the user warnings have been left on the offending user's talk page(s). At this time, I'm not sure that a request for protection would be granted (I'm sure that an admin will say that there's "not enough activity" on the article to justify an RFP). But in case this article gets heavily vandalized after I write this (e.g. w/in a 24-hour window, despite numerous vandal-reverts as exempted in the 3RR rule), then I'll personally make this request myself (unless another editor beats me to it). In case this happens, please let me know. Thanks =) --- Tito Pao 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Filmography and Television

In year 2006, can you put the info what's his role on the show and what TV station is released or broadcasted? - JLRAtwil 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firearms ownership

I recently watched a TV show in which Mr. Escudero said that he owned an Armalite, a shotgun, a Glock 18 pistol, and a racegun. To my knowledge, a Filipino citizen is normally allowed to own only two firearms. Also, two of these guns he owns, the Armalite and the Glock, are selective-fire weapons which cannot be owned by civilians. Isn't Escudero guilty of violating the law by owning more firearms than he is entitled to as well as owning military automatic weapons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.66.172 (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)