Talk:Prospero Nograles

Libel lawsuit and ICJ statement

The mere fact that the Court promulgated a final decision of NO EVIDENCE of libel, amid the ICJ's strong statement condemning the suit, should prove beyond doubt that the edit is notable, and must balance the article towards neutrality. If this section edit is deleted, then, Wikipedia might be accused of bias and partiality. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point in saying that the IFJ's statement on the matter is evidence of some notability. However, the "Lawsuit" subsection of the article takes up half of Nograles' "Political career" section, and I think you would agree with me that this makes the article imbalanced. My recommendation is to severely trim this lawsuit information to a one or two sentence summary. TheCoffee (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I became interested in editing this very short article (amid Wikipedia's invitation for us to participate in the survey, ending November 3), when all newspapers were flooded with Burlesque King. Nograles was forced to run naked in the hotel. Now, I was not a Wikipedian then, but, when, the landmark acquittal suit was published, I took time to edit this tersely. Nograles placed 2nd to my 1975 counsel in civil case, Atty. Henry R. Villarica, 92.35% higher than Ferdinand Marcos' 92.35% trimmed from 99% due to Marcos blunder in political law subject, in an En Banc review of his test results, 1939. Villarica owns more than 100 pawnshops, and is a very close friend-business assoc. of my brother, in gold and (they have 41/2 ha. Sta. Maria, Bulacan) fighting cock farm. I don't know Ateneo Law School Nograles, but due to the bar rating 2nd place, he is so brilliant. Now, in my 6,500 edits, I happened to have seen and edited like this controversy in bios of USA Senators, etc. So, I just follow the Wikipedia pattern. The difference between Dante Tinga and Nograles, is that, the former was cleared by the Court, but, the Nograles issue of censoring publication by libel lawsuit vs. the naked running, was condemned after Court acquittal for lack of evidence. In Nograles, the acquittal is best Wikipedia evidence to go forth with the edit on Nograles bio-naked thing. Remember the Beatrix of the Netherlands IP address fiasco caught by Wiki scanner? On August 31, 2007, Queen Beatrix’s royal family affirmed that Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau, 38, and his wife Princess Mabel Wisse Smit edited the entry on Wikipedia which described Mabel’s relationship with slain drug baron Klaas Bruinsma (using the queen's palaces’ computer). The changes were found by Dutch media using Wiki Scanner - the entry which states Mabel provided "incomplete and false information" about Bruinsma was changed to just "incomplete information" in January 2006.[1] My point is, in Tinga and Nograles, irrespective of Court acquittal or clearance, the publication of the bribe and Nog's U.P. Oblation run, respectively, with reliable sources, licenses us, editors, to add "the thing." On short edits, I respect IT and other editors, since, it is a matter of style. If I were not a judge or lawyer, or if I were not an A.B. communication, editor, then, like IT and math editors, I would edit with a sentence or 2. But I keep my edits to 3 sentences for this reason: links die in time due to pay per view, and, scholars or readers of Wiki must be provided with a choice, to read more meats or essential ingredients. Also, the libel suit was filed by Nograles, et al. and the subject is the naked run. Now Nograles withdrew due to affidavit of desistance, but, the other complainant did not, and the Court decided based on trial's evidence. So, with more reasons must the edit be there and at the very least, even a sentence, but the essentials of the naked run ought to be there.

Final point. I do not personally know Tinga, but in 1978, I hired a lawyer of Santiago, Tinga, Fornier Law Office, to handle my simple Malolos case. Tinga became congressman and had been well known for this controversy, it is of judicial notice in IBP. Personally, I ignored these, until Douglas Anama, my text mate, the husband of Felipa Borlongan Anama, our Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Court (with the equivalent salary and rank of CA Justice) repeatedly approached me to consult dwarves, due to their case which Tinga decided against him, that's his family home. Tinga is not the only one who had these bribery things; Ynares-Santiago and M. Nazario (remember the Ramos notable contempt fine) shared the pie. My point is - the Court would instead put to rest the issue by fine or contempt. But for us editors, we just follow the pattern in USA bio of senators and public figures. Hence, my edit is well copy pasted from Wikipedia good articles on sub-section controversies. But of course, with all due respect to your edits. Sorry, for my TLDR, but it is so informative. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem, to me, about the lawsuit section, is that it is a lawsuit against someone else. There is no real explanation of why it belongs in the Nograles article. It may be notable, but as far as I can tell, it isn't notable here. Where is the relevance? xschm (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)