Talk:Angeles City/Archive 4

Welfare Groups
Fr. Shay Cullen, a children’s rights advocate and three time Nobel Peace Prize nominee has spent 37 years of service helping the children of the Philippines and in particular Angeles. There are more welfare groups and Human Rights Moniters in Angeles then anywhere else in the Philippines. This is due to serious social problems in Angeles. Preda has been actively involved in Angeles for numerous years. The intervention of Preda into the Mango business over the past years has helped. The Salvation Army set up office there in 2005 and have been active in helping. 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 slum community. Angeles has the largest incidence of HIV and STD cases in the country. 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. The Women’s Health Care Foundation, WEDPRO sponsors a clinic in Angeles City."

Now im sure this should make everyone happy and can not see why such an article would be a problem to any law abiding normal citizen. If anyone is still not happy, pls enlighten us in the interests of dispute resolution, kind regards, Susanbryce 20:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is way too big and needs archiving. Ive set up the archive section and will move some of the older discussion into archives.Susanbryce 13:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

the phrase "There are more welfare groups and Human Rights Moniters in Angeles then anywhere else in the Philippines." needs a reference to support this statement. (also a spelling error here). i find it hard to believe that a city with such a relatively low population would have more groups and monitors than Manila, one of the most populated cities in the world.

i also tried to find another reference for your statement "Angeles has the largest incidence of HIV and STD cases in the country." since the one you provided does not tell how they came to that conclusion. it also is in direct contradiction to this reference which says that Angeles City has a relatively low incidence of HIV http://www.pia.gov.ph/default.asp?m=12&fi=p060628.htm&no=83 Many other official HIV estimates state the highest rates of HIV positive people in the country is from Overseas Foreign Workers and not from sex workers as you seem to be trying to associate here. http://www.doh.gov.ph/NEC/HIV/Feb-AIDSreg2007.pdf

you also refer to Angeles city as slum city. it clearly is not as anyone that doing any serious research into the city will easily conclude by looking at the facts. perhaps you can start here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luzon RodentofDeath 08:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

using non-english citations
Im wondering if we can use local philippine newspapers for reference here, its in tagalog, not english, thats the problemSusanbryce 14:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC) u tell u born ina angeles hah u r liar shit u r susan the one liar come here in angeles go to sapang bato meet the new people army o.k tell us about the angeles o.k if u lian sorry!!! mrs anti-angeles (susan) come again here in our city,and tell us about you in angeles now o.k (maybe you are mrs susan slum)did u know we have also university here and robinsons mall @sm mall.and ayala mall also soon to start there construction of the mall !!!come here again mrs susan slum...thanks even this article is again angeles city we still welcome u people come here in angeles us a human being... )

Removed references to Angeles being a "slum city"
I have corrected the false information that Angeles is a "slum city" and "3rd class city"

according to National Statistics Coordination Board of the Philippines, Angeles is a First Class City. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/municipality.asp?muncode=035401000&regcode=03&provcode=54

also added "outside the United States Mainland" to the information saying Clark was the largest base. obviously it was just an oversight to not include that phrase. RodentofDeath 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC) how come you call the city a slum if the city have many mall. angeles city mall list..wikipedia,can you add this in angeles city article pls.. robinsonsmall angeles saver'mall balibago sm clark nepo angeles jenra grandmall ayalamall angeles u/c

SUSANBRYCE why are you vandalising the page?
is there a reason you are removing well documented facts from the page, such as father cullen's arrest for raping a 7 year old, and continually adding the word "slum" even though it has been proven and documented that Angeles is not a slum but a 1st class city??? You also remove documented references to the low number of HIV cases. is this because it does not fit in with your agenda of trying to trash a city based on biased and/or completely absurd figures? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RodentofDeath (talk • contribs) 01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC). i ask again about susan, why don't vist angeles city now o.k before u make angeles city a bad image to the world, in see it yourself that's why you can see it properly. because you are blind.we invite you here susan to come here in angeles we the city goverment invite u pls come back to angeles city, see it yourself o.k make a real story about your article here wikipedia thanks.

More over-inflated opinions removed.
i removed the words "an enourmous amount of" (spelling error not mine) and "due to the serious social problems in Angeles." because while the links provided do point to a a few welfare groups and a few cases of arrest it is clear that the words "enormous amount" and "serious social problems" are nothing but the opinion of a few people intent on publicizing the city of Angeles in an extremely negative and unwarranted light. there certainly is no reason to call a handful of cases in a city of a quarter million people "an enormous amount". RodentofDeath 10:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC) of the 13 women's organizations listed in The Directory of Women's Resources only one is in Angeles. certainly not an enormous amount and not indicitive of any "serious social problems".

also removed "The majority are to be found in Angeles City, which has the largest proportion of Amerasians in the CORRECTION PLSSSS OLONGAPO CITY IS THE LARGEST PROPORTION OF AMERISIANS IN THE PHILIPINES)(Philippines. " as it is clearly not what the article quoted states and was once again put there to portray Angeles in a negative way. the article does state that there are more mixed-race children in Angeles than anywhere else in the philippines but that clearly does not mean a majority live there. it also does not mean they are Amerasian. The Philippine Children's Fund for America is not specific to Angeles and i can find no documentation that they are here in my city at all. there is no phone number for them. therefore, i have removed the reference as this has nothing to do with Angeles since it seems to be based on a country-wide basis and is misplaced here under the topic "Angeles". RodentofDeath 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

susan, please read the articles you are quoting. you are putting mis-information on this page by either not reading them or not comprehending what they are saying. your quote for your sentence "Orbis, a charity that provides free medical treatment is active in Angeles helping children in restoring and saving their eyesite" is incorrect. Orbis is not active in Angeles. in fact, the girl in the article seeking treatment was not even from Angeles. a flying eye hospital landed at Clark Air Base and treated people from surrounding communities. it has done this a grand total of ONE TIME SINCE 1982! i have removed the Orbis reference as it is clearly not worthy of mention on the Angeles page. RodentofDeath 11:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i have now checked one of your other references. it seems that ReachOut Foundation International was only active in Angeles from 2001 to 2002 and your information is no longer current. It has also been removed.

does anyone else see a pattern developing here of someone trying very hard to portray Angeles negatively instead of accurately?? RodentofDeath 11:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One certainly wonders why certain people are launching constant attacks against charities in Angeles. These charities provide so much help and assistence to the people of this slum city. Charities here provide thousands of free meals every day to the thousands of homesless children, yet any mention of these charities is removed from this article and they are attacked. Other charities that provide help and support to children who have been raped by foriegn paedophiles in our city have their links removed from the article and are attacked. Anyone who mentions anything about the good work of these charities is attacked here. Could this be because these charities are seen as a danger to the sex slavery trade in Angeles? So any mention of charities is removed from the article lest it cause media attention to the dirty sex slavery trade in Angeles and its customers.Susanbryce 14:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

susan, i am not "attacking" anything. i am making sure legitimate information is entered about the city i live in and illegitimate information is taken out. please back up your above claims that charities provide thousands of meals in Angeles a every day. it is exactly this type of unsupported claim that does not belong in an encyclopedia of facts. links to charities, especially the unbiased ones you post here do not meet the standard wikipedia has set. it is not the fact that anyone provides help or support to anyone that is in question. it is that you are making outrageous claims and can not back them up. that is why they are removed. you keep making references to a slave trade in angeles yet you have provided no evidence that a slave trade exists by any reliable and unbiased source. you keep making claims that Angeles is a slum and yet it has already been reliably documented that it is not. yet you still insist on inserting "slum" in as often as possible. you mention a charity that has visited angeles once in the last 20 years and post it as evidence that there are many charities currently working in angeles. the information you post is incorrect and deserves to be corrected. RodentofDeath 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

this is exactly what i mean by posting YOUR OPINIONS instead of facts. you posted: "There are a large amount of welfare groups and Human Rights Monitors in Angeles due to the serious social problems and the brutal sex slavery trade in Angeles." you have not documented the amount of welfare groups that are in angeles and you have not documented whether that is out of line with the population of angeles. you have not documented that "serious" social problems exist outside the normal problems associated with any city of it's size. you need to back this up with reliable sources not fringe lunatic websites. you are stating your opinion on the amount of welfare groups as opposed to stating facts. RodentofDeath 14:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is well cited, in fact it has probably more citations then needed, it fits exactly in with wiki guidlines, and provides a valuable resourse to people conducting research on Angeles. If you dont agree with the article, then put the matter to dispute resolution for senior editors to decide.Susanbryce 14:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

i agree completely with the documented facts. what i dont agree with is when you insert your opinions or misquote the references you site or blatantly misrepresent them. RodentofDeath 15:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

susan, once again you are vandalizing this page. after something was removed because of documented facts, such as the flying eye hospital has only visited angeles once, you are re=inserting it with an undocumented "hundreds of times". it is certainly not worthy of being included on a page about angeles city. RodentofDeath 15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again You are wrong! if you read the numerous citations you would see that the orbis flying hospital has been in Angeles numerous times, gee, ive even included a photo there that shows the hospital there in 2004! 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. As i said, read the citations properly before you make wild, outragous statemenrs hereSusanbryce 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

gee susan. 2004 is the one time i was talking about also. so please continue to document the "hundreds times" the flying hospital has been there since their own website that you have referenced only shows it being there once. http://www.orbis.org.et/bins/content_page.asp?cid=6-3159&lang=1 RodentofDeath 15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, i need help here from the administrators and senior editors pls. I am being stalked constantly by RodentofDeath, whois only purpose seems to be deleting anything I post on wikipedia despite much of it already having been previosly approved by senior editors. His actions of deleting everything I post and engaging in personal attacks against me amount to stalking me.Susanbryce 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

interesting choice of words. it seems that me correcting an article with false accusations in it results in false accusations against me personally for stalking. i am simply correcting misinformation, undocumented accusations and stopping a smear campaign of a fine city. RodentofDeath 16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not discussing the facts of the article, you are deleting everything I ever post on Wikipedia, despite much of it being approved by senior editors before. The artcile is well sourced and provides numerous citations, at no stage have you shown the citations to be incorrect.Susanbryce 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have always been more then happy to compromise on an article and have given way on many occasions, but you just simply delete everything I ever post in fullSusanbryce 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

susan, you are being paranoid and are now lying. i have certainly not deleted everything you have ever posted on Wikipedia as evidenced by this page itself. I am discussing the facts of the article. you are posting a "welfare section" with the obvious intent of defaming the city i live in. you have lied in your portrayal of facts by stating things that simply are not true. these are well documented on this page. you insist on calling angeles a slum despite it being proven it is a first class city. you insist on putting in welfare groups that are not in angeles, have only visited once or are no longer in operation. you insist on adding a "welfare section" to promote your views of how society should be instead of how they actually are. you reference a "wefare group" continually that has been accused of kidnapping children and taking them away from their parents. a group who's founder has been charged with raping a 7 year old. a group that uses vigilante tactics against anyone it wishes.

now if after we discuss something and i prove that you misrepresent your links for your biased point of view i delete them according to wikipedia's rules. "compromising" isnt necessary. iposting factual information is. how many times have you re-inserted the word "slum" without even bothering to look up the fact that angeles is a 1st class city? RodentofDeath 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

At no stage have you factually disputed the evidence. You have only gave personal opinions, but never cited evidence to the contrary. Wikipedia is anenclyclopedia of Fact, not of personal opinion. The article is well cited and factual. If its wrong, go through each sentance and provide your citations(not opinions) here, on how each sentence is wrong.Susanbryce 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can "prove" that anything is not correct, im happy to remove or adjust the wording. But you must prove it through recognized citations of evidence, not opnions. Now i am opening up the olive branch here to reach consensus, why dont you accept that and have discussion here to resolve the wording.Susanbryce 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry susan. once again you do not understand the rules here at wikipedia. if you are inserting information it must be notable and well referenced BY RELIABLE SOURCES. it is up to you to prove that your information meets that standard, not me to disprove it. please read the rules. lying and saying i am inserting opinions when in fact i have not won't change the fact that you over-inflate numbers, use biased sources of information and outdated information to display your opinions here. i have previously gone through your articles line by line and edited them and explained why. you then continue to insert lies about Angeles such as calling it a slum when i have proved it is not, saying a flying hospital has been there hundreds of times when in fact i have proved it was only there once, etc. as far as reaching a consensus, the consensus seems to be that the welfare section is not notable and is just put here to make Angeles look bad. you are the only person that thinks otherwise. i am very happy to follow the consensus of the people here. it seems you are not. RodentofDeath 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup task force
Clean up of one person conitnually inserting mis-information and distortions about Angeles City needed. RodentofDeath 01:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the template to the top because it was putting the table of contents for the talk page under it. RJFJR 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Add the Philippine cities back &mdash;   scorpion prinz   17:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

editprotected what scorpion prinz said above ^^. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Chris S. 01:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other than the prostitution battle, some more work needs to be done
Fascinating battle here, but if someone has some good historical information, what's left of the article could use some work.

"Being the former home of the biggest American base outside of the United States mainland, it lies in a threshold of change after being severely affected by the base pull out brought about by the great eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. It has risen from the ashes by putting itself back to the economic status that it once occupied and dream surpassing feats never before any city or province has ever accomplished."

Some copyediting needs to be done here, and the chamber of commerce last sentence should be deleted.

The History section jumps from 1829 to 1900 to the end of WWII. In there, especially because of the emphasis on the American presence, should be some notes on the early US military presence -- Fort Stotsenberg and then Clark Field, which was an important air base attacked by the Japanese in the opening hours of the US entry into the war. A lot of this is more properly put in the Clark article, of course, but because the US military presence there, at least a few sentences outlining the history of the symbiosis would be useful.

"During the American colonial period (1898-1946), a recorded number of more than 800,000 Americans were born in the Philippines." Well, sure. the Phils was a US colony and then commonwealth, and Filipinos were US nationals. Any child born to at least one US parent in the Phils was a US citizen, and he/she could transmit that citizenship to his own children. But this has nothing much to do with Angeles City.

The next paragraph is jarring, with the US pullout from Clark banging into the infamous prostitution reference.

In Economy, I don't know what the reference to a "new road" means. If that's the long delayed new road to Subic Bay, it isn't finished yet. Tito john 05:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ( this the scte.in short subic clark tarlac expressway.connecting the two freeport subic and clark goin to tarlac it is also connecting north luzon expressway.clark to tarlac finish this coming august and subic clark will be finish this coming november 2007..come and visit angeles now..and explain if angeles city is a slum city o.k pls visit angeles now!!!!!!
 * lots of good things there, cuya. i too wondered about the "new road" reference and came to the personal conclusion that it was probably a reference to the recently re-worked expressway to manila instead of the tarlac-subic expressway. either way it does not seem to be correct. maybe it would be better to say the transportation infrastructure in the area is currently going through a major upgrade??? RodentofDeath 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected

here is the suggested section....


 * It is inappropriate for admins to make significant changes to protected articles. This article will only be protected until the disputes from April 19 are settled. After it is unprotected, you will be able to add teh section yourself. CMummert · talk 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Welfare Groups
There are a large amount of welfare groups and Human Rights Monitors in Angeles due to the serious social problems of Angeles. Orbis the flying eye hospital, a charity that provides free medical treatment is active in Angeles helping children from the slums in restoring and saving their eyesite. They first starting visiting in 1982 and have made numerous visits since. 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. Preda has been actively involved in Angeles for numerous years. The intervention of Preda into the Mango business over the past years has helped. Preda has also been active in helping children in jail. Preda has been involved in helping law enforcement bring those involved in the prostitution of children to court. The Salvation Army set up office there in 2005 and have been active in helping. 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. 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. The Women’s Health Care Foundation, WEDPRO sponsors a clinic in Angeles City. The Philippine Children's Fund for America 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. The Loving Care Street Kids Foundation provides offers free meals to the thousands of children left homeless on the streets on Angeles city. Many homeless street children are taken to the Bahay Bata Center, an institution taking care of orphans and abused children.

...., Susanbryce 14:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION ABOUT THE AMERASIAN IN THE PHILIPPINES..OLONGAPO CITY HAS MANY AMERASIAN IN THE PHILIPPINES.SUSAN EXPAIN WHERE DID YOU GET THE INFORMATION THAN ANGELES HAS MANY AMERASIAN,EXCUSE ME OLONGAPO CITY HAS MANY MANY AMERASIAN O.K..SUSAN,I KNOW ,YOU ARE ANTI-ANGELES EVEN THE START

(comment deleted)


 * "large amount" is an opinion, not a fact.
 * "serious social problems" is an opinion and not a fact... its not even a correct opinion!!
 * preda is not a reliable source of independent information. it is extremely biased.
 * once again you continue to slander Angeles by calling it a slum and it has already been proven it isnt.
 * the orbis flying hospital has been to angeles a total of one time yet you still site this as proof of a "large amount" of welfare groups.
 * the loving care street kids foundation does NOT supply free meals to thousands of children. once again you exaggerate and distort the truth. please post where you get this fact because it is incorrect... just like most of the other information you post here.
 * one of the main contributors to the Bahay Bata Center is the bars that you continually call "brothels" in error and try to close down.
 * the entire "welfare groups" section is not notable as per wikipedia's standards. did you even bother to read them? why not post of section on "service stations" and list all the gas stations in Angeles? why not post a list of all the money changers in angeles and their rates? you know why and i know why. its not significant or notable. neither is "welfare groups". jeez, you are posting about a plane that has visited Angeles once!!! RodentofDeath 07:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Rodentofdeath, a reasonable standard of civility could be expected from editors, accordingly I have removed some of your unconstructive comments. In future, could I suggest that you comply with our civility policy. Thanks, Addhoc 10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

from what i can see it seems you deleted part of a comment by someone else (written in all caps) and not my comments. RodentofDeath 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the references listed on the Angeles City page
Jack444 13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Jack444 comments

I am concerned about the references on the Angeles City page:

http://www.preda.org/archives/hl/wvb.html. I looked throught the Preda website, and as far as I can tell all the material is controlled solely by Father Cullen. I am sure he is a well meaning person trying to make a difference in the world, but is pretty clear from his writtings that he is a zelot (which goes to the point of credibility). Many of the claims on the Preda website seem downright outlandish. One thing I found telling is Preda’s organization chart. It contains dozens of positions, but no names. I think the Wikipedia moderator should reevaluate including that reference.

http://www.ips.fi/koulut/199742/6.html The writer of this article (Sol F. Juvida) has a long list of articles making wild claims. Many of the claims seem unbelievable: Examples, 75% of the prostitutes are children, and servicing 15 customers per night. What screening or quality control did that article receive? Is the article accredited by IPS? Is IPS a credible organization?

To put the above references in perspective, take a look at the Rotary Club’s child assistance program in Angeles City (http://www.angelesstreetkids.org/main.htm). The Rotary Club seems to be a reputable international organization made up of leaders that take charity and human dignity very seriously. If child prostitution is rampant in Angeles City, why is any mention of it missing from the street kids project?

One of the interesting quality control / cultural control features of Rotary is how they regulate chapter membership. Rotary tries to limit chapter membership to one person per industry. They do this to prevent chapters from becoming inbred and suffering from groupthink (they want their chapters to consist of a broad selection of decision makers from the community).

I am sure child prostitution and abuse is a problem throughout the world, but it seems to me that many news organizations and NGOs have developed a bad habit of hyping stories to get attention (and donations). This results in a vicious escalating cycle of manipulation and distortion of the facts. The real tragedy is that the “airwaves” get so full of hyperbole, ordinary decent folks become desensitized and unable to respond when something real happens. There are plenty of real problems to solve in the world, it is not helpful to be inventing problems where they do not exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack444 (talk • contribs).

ThankYou for joining the angeles discussion. This article has been through a long edit war, and a general consensus was that there is a problem of human trafficking in Angeles and a reference to that was inserted. The last thing anyone wants is another edit war here. With that said, this is an encyclopedia, and it is your right to challenge things here. But it is up to you to prove the statement wrong with Quality citations.Poppy2828 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone able to come up with any information about the history of the area during world war two and the Japanese occupation of the area? Might be a valuable addition to the history section.Poppy2828 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone able to come up with the link to the latest census? the 2000 census is a bit out of date now, it would be better to find the latest census.Poppy2828 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A photo of the old clark air base might be good, as well as a photo at the time of the volcano explosion. A current photo of a festival would also be a nice addition.Poppy2828 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The 2000 census is the latest. I just read an article in the Philippine News saying that the 2007 census will be underway in August. --Chris S. 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

prostitution rears its ugly head in the angeles city article again. now we have this line: Since the early days of Clark Air Base, Angeles City has become known as a centre for prostitution. This industry increased greatly after the end of World War II.

ok, let's look at citation number one. it is about richard agnew. the famous case where one of susnbryce's friends, susan pineda, attempted to extort money from richard by saying one of the girls working for him contracted aids while working there. richard refused to pay. she had the clubs raided, brought the media along with cameras rolling and brought a dentist along to prove the age of the girls. the dentist declared a handful of workers to be underage and richard was arrested. HE WAS CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES WHEN ALL THE GIRLS WERE PROVED TO BE OVER 18. instead of reporting the facts in this case this article instead implies that he is not operating his clubs legally. it states his clubs cater to foreigners looking for underage girls EVEN THOUGH NO UNDERAGE GIRLS WORK FOR HIM. it states "On a recent Saturday night, several of the bored-looking dancers in Nero's Forum nightclub looked no older than 12 or 13." even though ALL THE GIRLS WORKING FOR HIM ARE OVER 18. they are all legally licensed to be working in a bar as required by law. they must go to the NBI to prove their age and identity in order to be cleared for the license. it implies he is in the country illegally by saying "He came back last Christmas on a 21-day single-entry visa and is still in the country, six months later." everyone is issued a 21 day visa on entry. you simply renew it at the visa office if you stay longer. there is nothing illegal about this. by the way, the girl susan pineda said had aids has repeatedly tested negative for HIV and says she has never tested positive in her life. she was not tested at all before the extortion attempt and only was told she had aids because her mother said so. so does anyone still want to argue that citation number one is credible?

citation number two... it seems that if you repeat something enough times it eventually becomes fact. as we have seen and discussed here earlier the information used to form the basis of this report comes from such reliable sources as "a [unnamed] lawyer attended a conference in manila" and the website "world sex guide". these are definitely not reliable sources of information. another interesting thing is that this citation directly contradicts your first citation by saying up to 80% of the bars and hotels are owned by australians. your first citation says "richard owns all the bars around here" and he's not an aussie. so which one is it? anyone still think this is a reliable citation?

citation number three. "Of some 500 sex workers in the town, about 75 percent are children".... come on!! does anyone think that 75% of the prostitutes in ANY town are children? you gotta be kidding. oh, this is susan pineda speaking.... miss extortion herself. yea, she's reliable. Sol F. Juvida was already discussed above as not being reliable. anyone want to argue that citation three is a reliable source of info?

citation number four. PREDA. that should be enough right there to convince anyone with a normal brain that its not reliable. yet for the rest there is this wonderful quote from the citation "The town’s main industry is prostitution"... sorry, the towns main industry it NOT prostitution. anyone saying that needs to have their head removed from one of their body orifices. anyone wish to discuss the credibility of this article further?

citation number five. Father Shay. that should be enough right there to...... ah nevermind. here's a quote from father shay "During the Vietnam War, the number of sex bars and clubs increased dramatically, so did the prevalence of HIV-AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases." does anyone wish to argue with me that AIDS became prevalent during the vietnam war and this article is still credible?? i didnt think so.

citation number six. how many bad citations does it take to equally a good one? here is a quote "Many bars and clubs employ underage girls." sorry, but the total number of bars that employ underage girls is exactly ZERO!! they are all licensed to work in the bar and must prove their age to the NBI in order to get the license. all the bars are inspected on a regular basis by various law enforcement and government agencies. there are no underage girls in the bars. nobody wants them. not the city. not the owners. not the other workers. not the customers. nobody. anyone that would employ an underage girl would be quickly arrested. may they rot in jail. RodentofDeath 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Human trafficking again
first, i dont think a consensus was reached to say human trafficking was a problem. in fact, i think susan probably received more comments saying it wasnt true than it was (along with unfortunate threats but these opinions still exist). it may be time to take a look at the actually numbers of that "consensus" that was reached. remember, the article is about HUMAN TRAFFICKING and not prostitution. they are not the same thing. i have yet to see any evidence of any forced prostitution at all from any reliable and unbiased source. there are a few isolated cases of child prostitution but to say a whole city has a human trafficking problem is in error and then to call it significant is even more in error. wikipedia should state facts and not be swayed by people with an obvious political agenda. They are using everyone's natural desire to protect children for the purpose of slandering a city they have an obvious grudge against.

secondly, poppy states "But it is up to you to prove the statement wrong with Quality citations.". i dont believe this is correct. the rules at wikipedia state it is the obligation of the person putting information into the article to prove their citations are reliable, not the other way around. i have said for quite a while now that preda is not a good source of information as they are very biased and release articles that are sensational and often in error. i point to the case of richard agnew who had all charges dropped against him and preda wrote another article implying that he was "back in business" doing illegal things. while preda does do some good work their vigilante tactics have even been criticized by the church. RodentofDeath 16:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any source that would convince you on this? We now have the Parliament of South Australia, and John Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and The Independent (quoting the United Nations), all saying prostitution is a major industry in Angeles City. Do you dismiss these all as "very biased"?


 * As for the "actually numbers", this isn't a straw poll &mdash; see Polling is not a substitute for discussion. A loudly-stated opinion with no references doesn't really scuttle the consensus, per WP:UNDUE. / edgarde 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * prostitution is not human trafficking. try again. RodentofDeath 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of the parent comment, but if it's nitpicking you want, here is the article text that's being repeatedly deleted despite multiple citations:
 * "Since the early days of Clark Air Base, Angeles City has become known as a centre for prostitution. This industry increased greatly after the end of World War II."
 * All the citations confirm prostitution is a major industry in Angeles City. Several refer to AC as the Philippines' capital for such trade. So with "try again", you really haven't answered either of my questions. / edgarde 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

at least now we are not confusing human trafficking with prostitution anymore. please tell us about this major industry. how much money does it make compared to the other industries that are not as major? how many people does it employ? i would love to be able to see facts instead of opinions on exactly what this "major" industry is like compared to the other "minor" industries in angeles, such as say the minor industry of call centers that employ thousands with such clients as Dell and AOL. or maybe the furniture industry that exports all over the world. how do these minor industries compare with your major industry?RodentofDeath 01:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, your tangential complaint doesn't make much of a case against the article text given the citations provided. / edgarde 01:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * perhaps you didnt notice. i already commented on your citations above.RodentofDeath 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Partial citations list

 * Your comments above also tend to take issue with off-topic parts of the citations. I hope this is not deliberate obfuscation. Here are the passages to which I'm referring:
 * In response to this, you've called pretty much everyone liars, but haven't cited any opposing sources. / edgarde 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to this, you've called pretty much everyone liars, but haven't cited any opposing sources. / edgarde 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to this, you've called pretty much everyone liars, but haven't cited any opposing sources. / edgarde 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to this, you've called pretty much everyone liars, but haven't cited any opposing sources. / edgarde 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

i see. so your point is that even though the source is unreliable you can still use it as a citation because you dont use the entire article?

ok, how about this for citing opposing sources. i will take your first citation saying that richard owns all the bars and use that as an opposing opinion for your second source that says 80% of the bars are owned by australians. that should be good enough for starters on the first two citations unless you can prove that richard is 80% australian somehow.

as for the "prostitution is still the only industry in town" statement, do you really think i will have any trouble proving that ANY other industry is in town?RodentofDeath 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * More tangential nitpicks, none of which conflict with the article text I quoted above.
 * And for the 2nd time, I'm asking this. Are you dismissing the Parliament of South Australia, and John Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and the United Nations? Is there any source that would convince you on this? / edgarde 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

unless i am having trouble counting i seem to be missing the first time you asked me. to answer your question, it is not the entire Parliament of South Australia i am dismissing. i am saying that your representation of the Parliament of South Australia is in error because, as we already discussed here earlier, the report is based on one unnamed person attending a conference in manila. it is not an investigation by Parliament. i see that you conveniently edited out the "She maintains that" part of your quote which confirms that this is not the opinion of Parliament but is the opinion of one nameless person testifying. so what you are doing is not only basing your citation on one nameless person's testimony but you are trying to misrepresent that persons testimony as the opinion of The Parliament of South Australia.

you are asking if i am dismissing the United Nations however you are not citing the united nations. you are citing an article that already has many, many errors yet you expect everyone to believe that the remark you cite is somehow more accurate than the rest of the article. the article is not reliable.

next you seem to think that because someone quotes an already proven unreliable and biased article from PREDA word for word that it somehow magically transforms into something reliable. the article quoted deliberately misrepresents facts as i stated above.

now shall i ask you a second time to reply to the question i previously asked? so your point is that even though the source is unreliable you can still use it as a citation because you dont use the entire article? RodentofDeath 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These sources are reliable.
 * The "She maintains" piece you're disputing refers to Sabina Lauber, the delegate from the Australian Law Reform Commission. I think that's a pretty significant source. If you feel that not including "She maintains" in an already lengthy quote is a problem &mdash; your complaint that I "dont use the entire article" in a citation, if that's what you really mean, is absurd &mdash; please note that anyone can click the link for further context. However, the quote provides the gist of it. I have a link more directly to her report, but the report from Parliament is more notable, so that's what's linked.
 * None of the three citations I've presented here are from PREDA. Your continuing vilification of PREDA Foundation remains unsubstantiated, but that's irrelevant here.
 * When you assert that the article from The Independent has "many, many errors", who am I to believe, you or the newspaper? You haven't provided any citations.
 * Again, you are nitpicking, and none of your nitpicks contradict the article text. / edgarde 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference nitpicking
i'm sorry if pointing out that your sources are unreliable and even contradict each other is nitpicking. i am not sure why you are coming to the conclusion that i am complaining you "dont use the entire article" when what i am actually saying is that your articles have many errors and therefore are not reliable sources of information. while you may feel Sabina Lauber is a significant source your citation doesnt say the unnamed person is actually her. all you have is the word of an anonymous person telling parliament their interpretation of a conference in manila. you then claim in error that this is the view of parliament when in fact the article does not even claim that.

however, you are correct in one statement. none of the citations are from preda. preda, known for claiming such inaccuracies as AIDS was prevalent during the vietnam war, is just the source of their information and is quoted. as far as believing me, its up to you. your claims i have not provided any citations is not true. i have provided two citations. YOUR CITATIONS. your first citation says richard owns all the clubs and he is irish while your second citation says the clubs are 80% owned by australians. please tell me if your first citation is in error, your second citation is in error or if Ireland is now part of Australia. RodentofDeath 10:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"She maintains"

 * The article is annotated "(Lauber, 1995)" in two places. The name of the Australian government's representative isn't strictly needed to prove anything since this is obviously a document from the Australian government, but since you are making an issue of it, here's a source:

"Richard"

 * The "Richard" issue is as tangential as can be. There can be dozens of explanations for the discrepancy, so nothing is disproved by this. Variables include:
 * The Richard quotes &mdash; including "Richard owns all the clubs around here" &mdash; are taken from someone working at the bar, and are not presented in the article as authoritative.
 * Richard owns all the clubs "around here" &mdash; this is a casual delineation that may only apply to Fields Avenue, or some other undefined area.
 * Situations changing between the dates of the articles (separated by over a year)
 * Richard is not "Irish" in the article; you're misreading that. The Irishman is an unnamed co-owner.
 * It's a red-herring, and it does not contradict the article text.


 * You have provided no citations. Making bogus arguments about the multiple citations provided by others is not providing citations; if anything it is a smoke screen for an inability to source your claims. You really need to provide some extraordinary evidence that Angeles City is not "known as center of prostitution". You're not even close. / edgarde 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Falling on deaf ears
Hmmm...I'm beginning to sense that a certain "Edgarde" in here seems the same person as Susan Bryce. I don't know but that's how I strongly feel. If Edgarde is not Susan, then most likely he/she is in the group of Susan, trying their best to push their personal agenda against Angeles, Pampanga.

Why have I said that? Just look at the links/URL he provided to the point of bombarding the references section with TMI, particularly with paragraphs attacking the city. I've never seen a reference section as long as this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.228.251 (talk • contribs).


 * And yet it's still not enough to satisfy User:RodentofDeath. Go figure. / edgarde 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

what can you possibly mean by saying that it doesnt contradict the article?!! you have two citations. one says that richard owns all the clubs around here. whether it is a direct quote of someone else or not YOUR CITATION STILL SAYS IT. the other citation says that they are 80% owned by australians. unless you are contending that richard is australian (and he isnt) you have proved your citations are unreliable sources all by yourself!!! i dont need to prove anything at all. you need to prove they are from reliable sources in order to include them. please read the wikipedia rules again, susan. err... edguarde. we already discussed the issue that susan has misrepresented the australian law reform commission testimony of one person as that of an official position by the australian government. you are now claiming the same thing in error that she has in the past. it is no wonder other people think you are in fact susan bryce.

as far as your "still not enough to satisfy rodent" comment is concerned, it is irrelevant how many UNRELIABLE sources you cite. you need to cite RELIABLE sources!!! so far you have not. you have articles claiming prostitution is the only business in town. here is statement with reliable citations you may use as an example: The call center industry in Clark Special economic zone is growing. you may also use these references to refute your "its the only industry in town" article if you like. RodentofDeath 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We have five citations from reliable sources. That's plenty. If you continue to revert-war over this, we'll probably be heading for mediation. / edgarde 22:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * we? you have five citations from UNRELIABLE sources that even contradict each other. if you wish to go to mediation please be my guest. RodentofDeath 22:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Edgarde, the citations are well cited and has a right to be included in the article.Poppy2828 13:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * interesting. so you think that richard owns all the bars and that 80% of the bars are owned by australians. i am sure he will be happy to know that he is now australian. this is despite the fact that foreigners cant own more than 40% of a business. it is physically impossible for the citations to be accurate. not only that but you deleted the well cited information of WHAT IT IS ACTUALLY KNOWN FOR!!! un-friggin-believable!! RodentofDeath 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This "Richard" canard was addressed here. Either you didn't read it, or you're ignoring it. / 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * i did read it and i laughed at it. it is in the article and it is the only view on ownership in that article. it clearly states that richard owns all the bars around here. it gives no other opinion therefore the article states that he owns all the bars. this is in direct contrast to the other article cited. what really made me laugh was that an explanation was given that they are separated by over a year. it does not matter. at no point did richard own all the bars and at no point were all the bars 80% owned by australians. they are both wrong!! the year difference in the articles is insignificant. but what really had me rolling on the floor was the "around here" explanation. obviously it is an explanation by someone that has never been to angeles. the bar district is very small. it is only a very small part of angeles. it is certainly not representative of the entire city as many others here would try to have you believe. there is only one logical explanation for the "around here" comment. the richard reference is only one part of what makes the article inaccurate. it seems nobody wants to address things like "On a recent Saturday night, several of the bored-looking dancers in Nero's Forum nightclub looked no older than 12 or 13." even though every worker must be over 18 and there are regular inspections by authorities.


 * i see you ignored that you deleted what Angeles is actually known for. Either you didn't read it, or you're ignoring it. RodentofDeath 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This matter is now in Arbitration, let the tug-of-war be decided there.Poppy2828 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. We're still in discussion, which is the first step in Dispute resolution, and also the preferred place to resolve disputes. I've been through arbitration before, and this issue probably doesn't merit one.
 * There is however an Incident report. / 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

good references, bad references 1
the problems with citation http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article44952.ece

"Mr Agnew runs a string of bars and clubs in Fields Avenue that cater to Western sex tourists seeking under-age girls." inaccurate. there are no underage girls in the clubs. if anyone is seeking underage girls this is not the place to find them. actually, many of the clubs cater to japanese and korean tourists.

"He was arrested last year and deported, but is back in the Philippines, operating the same businesses with apparent impunity." biased and misleading informtation. he was arrested and all charges were dropped when it was discovered that all the girls he employs are over 18 despite susan pineda's blackmail scheme and the dentist that was paid to say girls were underage. (yes, thats right. a dentist). the reason the business is running with impunity is that it is doing nothing illegal.

"On a recent Saturday night, several of the bored-looking dancers in Nero's Forum nightclub looked no older than 12 or 13." blatantly inaccurate and intentionally misleading. there are no girls that look 12 or 13 since all the girls are over 18. no exceptions.

"It was a similar story at the Blue Nile Executive Club next door, where men scanned the dance floor before paying a "bar fine" - a fee for taking the girl of their choice away for sex." inaccurate. first, there is nothing called a "barfine". there is something called a "early work release" (EWR) but this is not for sex. girls and the bars make money by selling "ladies drinks" which are overpriced drinks the customer buys the girl for her to sit and talk to him. the girl gets a commission on the drinks and obviously the bar makes money too. an EWR is compensation to the bar and the girl for the income and commission they both lose by the girl not finishing her shift. the girl is free to go with the customer to do as they both wish. an EWR does not include payment for sex as that is prostitution and is illegal.

"Mr Agnew, 44, was nowhere to be seen, and staff at the Tropicana Hotel, which he owns, said he was in Thailand." inaccurate. a foreigner can not own a majority of any business in the philippines. it must be mostly owned by filipinos. the only exception to this is inside special economic zones and the tropicana (which doesnt exist anymore) was not inside an economic zone.

""Richard owns all the clubs around here," said the friendly floor manager at Nero's Forum." inaccurate. richard does not even own all the clubs he has a financial interest in... never mind all the other clubs. this quote is stated as fact.

"Mr Agnew's business partner, Steve Baker, from Cambridge, was equally forthcoming. "Richard and I run all these clubs with an Irish guy," he said. inaccurate. this article is now at the point where i doubt the quotes are even real. agnew and baker do not run all the clubs around anywhere.

"...after raiding one club, the Blue Nile, and discovering six girls aged between 11 and 13." inaccurate and intentionally misleading. the author of this article must know at this point that charges were dropped. all girls were proven to be over 18. oh, and the club that was raided was Misty's not Blue Nile.

"A police video of the raid, which followed a complaint that he was employing young girls, suggests he had an arrangement with local police. "I was promised there would be no more harassment," he protested repeatedly as he was led away." misleading but somewhat true. what he was actually talking about was that his clubs were raided on a previous night as part of the blackmail scheme by susan pineda. it was explained to the officers in charge of the raid (after nothing illegal was found to be happening) that it was part of a harassment and blackmail campaign. the officers promised to investigate his claims and said they would not act on further complaints by susan pineda as part of her blackmail attempts.

"He came back last Christmas on a 21-day single-entry visa and is still in the country, six months later." intentionally misleading. when entering the country visitors are given a 21 day visa. if you want to stay longer you apply for an extension. there is nothing wrong with being in the country 6 months later after being admitted on a 21 day visa.

"Mr Agnew, who was born in Larne, Northern Ireland" who was it that said he wasnt irish??? apparently this is one of the few things in this article that is accurate.

"prostitution is still the only industry in town." deliberately inaccurate. i wonder what all the other industries in town think about this statement.

"Many want young girls, as young as possible, preferably virgins - "cherry girls", as they are known in Angeles, where raping of these children is jocularly described as "cherry-popping"." grossly inaccurate. most customers... in fact almost all customers do NOT want girls as young as possible. they want pretty girls. most prefer NOT to go with cherry girls as evidenced by walking into a club near closing time. if there is a stunning girl on stage and not EWR already you can be guaranteed its a cherry girl. the second sentence about raping children is EXTREMELY inaccurate and shows deliberate intent to disgust the reader into seeing things from a certain point of view. there are no children working in the bars. there is no system for rape as implied here. if there is a rape, and unfortunately it happens in angeles just like any other town, it is strongly encouraged that the rape be reported to the police and the police are very willingly to apprehend the offender quickly. to give you an idea of how inaccurate this statement is i personally know a few girls working in the bars that are in their late 20s and still virgins. they will be until they are married.

"They used to dance naked, but the council cracked down. Now they have to be covered up. But trade is still good." grossly inaccurate. it is illegal to dance naked or show nudity in the bars. again, i think the writer is just making these quotes up. i cant see an owner saying "the trade is still good". maybe something like "business is good" but trade is inaccurate and frankly is something susan bryce would say but not a club owner.

"He confided to a fellow drinker: "If you ever want Viagra, just speak to Steve [Baker]." inaccurate and it accuses someone of illegal activity. viagra is not sold in the clubs. it is sold in pharmacies nad there are street vendors outside the clubs selling fake stuff.

"Although they have been alerted to Mr Agnew's return to Angeles, local police have declined to take action, saying they still have no evidence that he owns the clubs - 17 in total, according to one estimate." misleading. police declined to take action because there was nothing illegal happening. the 17 number is rather humorous though. perhaps this article is supposed to be a joke.

"Father Shay Cullen, an Irish priest who has been fighting child prostitution in the Philippines for two decades, said: "He [Mr Agnew] is into clubs and bars, and minors are found inside, so let a court of law decide."" inaccurate and misleading. the court decided that all there were no girls under 18 in the clubs and dropped the charges.

"At the Preda Foundation, the refuge that Father Shay runs near Angeles, Mr Agnew is a familiar face to one girl, Roxanne. Shown a photograph, she said: "That's Big Daddy," the term for a sex-club owner. She added: "We always had to smile nicely when he was around." Roxanne was 13 when she was rescued from the Cambodia Club, one of Mr Agnew's establishments." grossly inaccurate. preda is in olongapo, not near angeles. nobody calls club owners or managers "big daddy". they are commonly referred to as "daddy richard" or "daddy steve" just like they refer to female management as "mommy bebe" or "ate joan" (older sister joan). it is a term used to address someone with friendly respect. roxanne can not have been 13 when rescued from a club because all workers need to be over 18 to be employed there. furthermore, richard is accused of running a legally established bar, not a sex club.

"There are 100,000 child prostitutes in the Philippines, according to the UN children's agency, Unicef. In Angeles, they can be hired for 1,000 pesos (£10) a night. The girls receive half that sum." misleading. there are no children in the clubs. the EWR was formerly 1000p. its more now but i digress. you cant hire a child for a night that isnt there.

"The Philippines has stiff child protection laws, but they are only patchily enforced. Police and prosecutors are bought off, and the girls frequently lie about their age and hold false papers." inaccurate. the laws are strictly enforced. the girls need to verify their age and identity with the NBI before they are issued licenses to work. yes, they do lie about their age. the girls that are 25 tell the customers they are 21. the girls that are 18 tell the customers they are 21.

but the best evidence that this is an unreliable source is that while this article in The Independent newspaper claims angeles is the centre of the philippine sex industry... the Irish version of the paper claims the Olongapo is the centre of the philippine sex industry!! &mdash;The preceding comment is by User: (talk • contribs) : Please sign your posts!


 * Great. Can you cite sources for your critiques? Without them, most of your comments in this section are original research. Also, many of your unsourced assertions here, including that there are no child prostitutes in Angeles City, are contrary to the sources already provided in this article. / edgarde 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * my assertion is that there are no child prostitutes in the clubs which is what this citation is claiming. the sources provided prove that authorities do check for underage girls and make arrests when appropriate. correct me if i wrong but it seems that there has been about 2 incidents of arrest and convictions in the past 15 years. as far as sources for my critiques please see Wikipedia:Verifiability on where the burden of proof lies. you are using this article as a citation for "This is the centre of the Philippines sex industry" but i think it is clear that this citation has many errors and distortions in it. that angeles is "This is the centre of the Philippines sex industry" is one of those distortions. RodentofDeath 13:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)