Talk:RJ Nieto

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Social Media Entries As Citation

Tweets, FB statuses, YouTube videos and the subject's own blogs cannot be used as citation on Wikipedia so any addition to this article that cite on these kinds of sources shall be axed out. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they can be used as citations under certain conditions. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites -Object404 (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire subsection is an OR (original research) which is not valid. PERIOD. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

According to WP:RS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

  • The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  • It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). -> not third party, it's about the subject
  • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
  • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  • The article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook."

This means Facebook may be used as sources to support sections where Nieto directly said certain things as quotes. These are not original research as they are merely direct links to support the Reliable Source citation articles via by GMA News and Rappler. Thoughts on these, people? -Object404 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those certain conditions are not the case for RJ Nieto's.


1. 'The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.' → RJ Neito's posts are self-serving, or so what is being implied by the contentious statement in the article you cited by his Facebook posts.

2. 'It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).' → You're trying to circumvent upon this exception even if the section in RJ Nieto's article is about third parties, particularly allegedly "fake news" about those third parties.


3. 'It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.' → Some of the contentious claims written on RJ Nieto's article cite references that does not directly involve or even mention him, but around Mocha Uson and other bloggers whose issues are distinct from his.


4. 'There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.' → Your "fake news" section about RJ Nieto failed on this criterion as its purpose per se is to question authenticity.


5. 'The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.' → But those contentious statements about RJ Nieto were primarily based on his posts on his Facebook page. Even the news outlets refer primarily on his posts.


Additionally, you have not explained or justified how memebuster is a reliable source. It is not. It doesn't matter if news outlets cited these Facebook pages and tabloidesque partisan blogs. These are not reliable sources, and your use of such sources do not pass the critera for exceptions. You can just use news outlets as reference and stick to what is only written on those materials, not go as far as tweaking what was written upon these sources. Just because A is cited by B and B cites C does not mean you can cite C for A.


If you insist to use Nieto's Facebook posts as sources, perhaps it is better if we use archived version of these posts as social media posts can be edited and deleted. Like one admin suggested, only refer to social media posts when quoting the person directly.

The tone of the article was also assertive despite its questionable citations. A notice has already been added by another admin that contentious assertions be changed to neutral tone or remove entirely if poorly cited, as in accordance to rules in writing biography of wliving persons.

My suggestion, however, is that just axe away all those statements that are poorly cited or cited on OR/unreliable sources, or go find alternative citations that are more reliable. That's what you should have done long ago instead of just insisting on these exceptions that do not even support your use of social media posts as citation. Just provide alternative citations that are more reliable instead of wasting people's time insisting on using citations that are not valid. Failure to provide alternative citations for more than a year after I posted this Talk section only justifies that such content you've added are OR and justifies my removal of those questionable content. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @NoNDeSCRiPT: You are incorrect when you say that "Tweets, FB statuses, YouTube videos and the subject's own blogs cannot be used as citation on Wikipedia". Indeed they can be used per WP:V and WP:RS. In this case, they are being used to substantiate that a user has indeed said certain things via social media. That it is Twitter, a source that copied Twitter, or Facebook, is irrelevant. This doesn't mean that such a citation should be editorialized such as "Jimmy posted defamatory remarks..." but that such citations can and should be used SOLELY to note/verify neutrally-phrased and indisputable facts: "On June 5, 2019, Jimmy stated on Twitter 'John Smith is a nutjob'". If there is a reaction you wish to include, that should come from third party, reliable sources. "Reaction was swift from the Twitter community with many condemning/supporting his remarks<citation from New York Times><citation from London Times><citation from Newsweek>". If there is no external reaction to someone's remarks, then there is no need to note that they said it as it is not WP:Notable enough for inclusion. Buffs (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given those clarifications, on the context of RJ Nieto's alleged fake news, the citations used are in the context of disputable/disputed facts which are labeled fake news. And the falsification/dispute were done outside the social media posts but are referred to on external news outlets, so it is best to just cite the news outlet article and not the social media post as the article itself have cited and quoted the social media posts. Plus the statement on the article are written by the editor in editorialized and contentious way, even going as far as citing sources that does not even concern RJ Nieto directly (like some claims that cite to articles about Mocha Uson mixed with a social media post of Nieto). And as I have offered as a resolve, only use his social media post to quote his words, not as a sole citation for a non-verifiable claim. And once again, the other disputed claim that the tabloidesque website memebuster.net is RS remains unaddressed so I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RS, hence claims cited from it must be axed. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RS I think you should not be making any such assumptions. Generally, could you be specific about which statements cited to which sources you are taking issue with? Also generally, there is nothing inappropriate about linking to the facebook post that is the subject of a news article, unless that post is reproduced in its entirety on the news article itself. The goal is to provide readers with a citation not only to the secondary source on which Wikipedia relies for analysis, but also to the primary source where the reader can analyze for themselves. This is usually a good idea whenever a secondary source is describing a primary source. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that silence means consensus that it is not RS I concur. You're taking some significant liberties with that assumption. A primary source IS appropriate in some instances and this is one of those times. The phrasing should be as neutral as possible. Someguy rephrased what I said and emphasized what I was going to say in reply as well...thanks! Buffs (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too much into this dispute at this time but as I mentioned at AN when this dispute was brought there earlier, I agree with the others that's there's generally nothing wrong with link to social media posts when the posts themselves are the subject of RS discussion that we mention. If anything, it tends to be more harmful to exclude such posts since people are often claiming their comments have been taken out of context so such links help any reader to see for themselves. Often online sources will link to the posts anyway, but regardless, there's no reason to force a reader to go through them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I will say other than the problem with the removal of social media posts links which have been discussed by RS, some of the wording changes seem poor. The original wording "Nieto created a post" is far better than the modified wording "VERA Files fact-checked Nieto for creating". The subject of this article is Nieto. We don't care about what VERA Files did or did not do in this article, the focus should be on Nieto. In some cases if there is dispute it's necessary for in text attribution of a claim. But the modified wording does not suggest any dispute, therefore there's no reason for in-text attribution. And the modified text would never be a good example of good in-text attribution anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed a text fragment "Nieto stated at a senate hearing in 2018 that the Department of Foreign Affairs, where he briefly occupied a position before resigning". Frankly the new version is look poor enough that I'd support reverting to the old version in the interim while we discuss what changes are needed, WP:WRONGVERSION be damned. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meme Buster

With the silence means consensus comment, NoNDesCRiPT seems to be referring to this part:

Nieto has posted fake news and misinformation multiple times on his blog and Facebook page.[1][2]

which uses MemeBuster.net. I actually share their concerns over this source at least for BLPs. While it's evidently been cited by CNN before, I'm not convinced it meets our strong sourcing requirements. For example, I see no info on who runs the site in the about page, and the particular article cited says the author is Meme Buster and clicking the link doesn't provide any clue who wrote it.

That said, this seems to be a site focused on the Philippines and I don't know much about sources from there other than the fact it's recognised to be a dangerous media environment [1]. So people may well have good reasons for needing anonymity. As I said at AN, it may be helpful to seek further feedback on this source at either RSN or BLPN if there is continued dispute.

I would note that in any case since we have another RS, the removal of this source does not mean the change in wording was justified. The details of the other source may very well justify the original wording.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in contact with some people from Vera Files, which is a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter, and one of 3 accredited Facebook fact-checkers in the Philippines. According to Vera files, they got in touch with the people behind Memebuster, but the people behind Memebuster were adamant about not revealing their identities for fear of being trolled, or possible backlash from the Philippine administration as most of the disinformation/misinformation being spread through social media is pro-admin.[3][4] Because of this, they do not have bylines or their staff in their "about us" in their site. This aside, the fact-checks of Memebuster are pretty solid and well-researched. Hence both Vera Files[5] and CNN[6] citing Memebuster as a citation source. Those are very good "endorsements" as a resource far as institutions go. If MemeBuster is good enough for Vera Files and CNN, I think it should be good enough for us. -Object404 (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as dangers to media practitioners go, the Philippines happens to be the deadliest country in Asia for media workers, and the 5th deadliest in the world.[7] The Memebuster staff has a very good reason to keep their staff roster/identities hidden. Wanting to not die is valid, no? -Object404 (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "CBCP guide lists websites peddling fake news". Rappler. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  2. ^ "Blogger Thinking Pinoy apologized after posting fake news about Robredo's portrait being sold on eBay". Memebuster.net. Retrieved June 23, 2017.
  3. ^ Soriano, Jake (December 19, 2018). "Duterte, allies reap the most benefits from disinformation". Vera Files.
  4. ^ http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-sheet-trail-false-claims-made-and-fake-news
  5. ^ https://cnnphilippines.com/life/culture/politics/2017/10/12/fake-news-anatomy.html
  6. ^ Regine Cabato (December 20, 2017). "PH deadliest country in Asia for journalists – report". CNN.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH NOT ALLOWED

Please avoid adding contents that are ORIGINAL RESEARCH, contents referenced to citations that DO NOT AT ALL TACKLE THE SUBJECT, contents referenced to social media posts or to the website of the subject.


Some of the subsections contain texts that are cited towards articles about Duterte and not RJ Nieto. These must be moved to Duterte's article as that is the purpose of creating separate articles. Just because the subject supports Duterte doesn't mean you can interchange citations for the two.

Do not invent contents then give citations that doesn't support what you've added.

‘“Duterte said this” therefore it implies that’ is not a valid citation. That implication must also be pointed out by another external source and not by the original research of the editor. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jjlang response to above:

Given than Nieto's online persona exists solely to make propaganda for Duterte, it seems licit within scope of this article to contextualise his activity within a larger media theory and socio-historical context.

Duterte's behaviour towards people like Nieto is not an unrelated issue. It gives direct information on how people like Nieto are supported by Duterte himself with government appointments.

Granted, some of my statements could be edited to be more concise, but taking into account the wide influence of Nieto on Philippine political punditry and public opinion making, it's necessary to offer a larger context. As a public figure belonging a certain well-researched ilk, it seems relevant to situate Nieto's activity within a larger constellation of misinformation. He is a clear part of what researchers such as Jason Cabanes have publicly referred to as a wide architecture of disinformation in the Duterte regime. Bringing this academic research in seems quite relevant to offer a contemporary historical context. Or am I wrong?

Sincerely interested in the opinion of experienced editors and objective, constructive voices. Am kind of tired of the edit-war tone in the talk page, bent on twisting wiki policy with dubious "logic" instead of trying to understand it at face value and comply with it. Hoping for less convoluted grandstanding and more actual wiki-faithful advice on how to improve the factual content of this article. Also looking forward to this advice for improving my wikipedia writing style--which is frankly the only kind of writing that is giving me hope in the post-truth era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjlang (talk • contribs) 15:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid References

The article cited links to Facebook posts, the subject's own website and "memebuster.net" which are all not news sites or verified references. Contents cited to these links must be removed. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that the section you have removed was restored. Additional sources from Philstar, GMA News, Vera Files, Rappler, and Manila Standard were added to support the claims. -Hiwilms (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NoNDeSCRiPT's statement is incorrect (see above). Buffs (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request reinstatement of social media citations and removal of the words "allegedly"

As per discussion above in the "Social Media Entries As Citation" section, the usage of social media citations in the subject's article is valid and supportive of the news citations. As such, I would like to request an administrator to reinstate said citations.

The deleted citations may be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RJ_Nieto&diff=916969414&oldid=916951897

Furthermore, the multiple usage of "allegedly" in the "Fake news and misinformation" section is inappropriate as 1) Nieto really did spread misinformation. 2) Nieto really did accuse photojournalist Jes Aznar of endangering government troops 3) Nieto really did cite a falsified 1979 psychiatric report attributed to the late Fr. Jaime Bulatao, SJ (as seen in the social media citation post by Nieto on Facebook)

As such, may we also request that instances of the word "allegedly" also be removed from the section.

Regards, -Object404 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RS for Karambola Radio Show = Political Lampoon/Satire?

Please provide reliable sources that the radio show "Karambola" is "political lampoon". Without reliable sources on this, this characterization should be removed from the article. -Object404 (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis/Essay-like

I believe Azuresky Voight has already removed the problematic content. As such am removing the following hat note:

"This article or section possibly contains synthesis of material which does not verifiably mention or relate to the main topic. (April 2018) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (April 2018)" -Object404 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brought back hatnote. Section on Vera Files fact check is essay-like/synthesis I think? -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From Azuresky Voight's edits on the section on Drilon: "Vera Files, however, conveniently omitted what Nieto said at the 4:18 mark, which was: “So ang tanong, ‘Nakatulog ba si Drilon o hindi? Well, judging from the video… ng CNN mismo, mukha ngang nakatulog.” (So the question “Did Drilon fall asleep or not? Well, judging from the CNN video itself, he really looks like he fell asleep.”)" -> This actually reinforces the fact that Nieto is suggesting to the public that Drilon fell asleep. -Object404 (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sections in question are now removed. Removing hatnote. -Object404 (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:RJ_Nieto"