Talk:Manuel Pinho

Starting discussion
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. When there is conflict among editors or users it's best to discussion the issues one at a time and achieve a consensus. Would someone like to start a discussion?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks Keithbob. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This page has since its creation been in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s Rule 7 on shameless self-promotion and in a way that also violates Rule 8 on arguing from authority, Rule 9 on neutrality, and Rule 6 on citing. The page has been crafted and closely guarded to make the subject look good on the basis of the information highlights he wants readers to retain. Additional factual contributions (critical or not) are never allowed to stay, even when referenced.  It is incomprehensible how a Wikipedia administrator would chose to delete extensive factual contributions (including non-controversial ones) and 30+ citations to restore AND PROTECT the largely unreferenced self-promoting content.  NEUTRALITY should apply both ways… If Manuel Pinho is using “his” page to show off and give the impression that he is a Columbia & Georgetown-caliber professor, then it should also be mentioned (with citation) that he is being sponsored by Portuguese entities for those positions. Don’t you think so?Arbitratusrex (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There do appear to be some neutrality issues with this article, especially around the controversy mentioned. Some of the article was removed by User:Usare, much of which seemed to me to be well referenced to third party sources. The reasons for removal were frequently mentioning libel, but the citations reflected the content, as far as I could tell. I have as such reinstated the removed content and put a POV tag on the article, so we can have a reasoned discussion about the material to determine the validity of the sources. crh23 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the point? That someone who has been teaching at Columbia/ Yale/ Queensland/ Beijing, has been awarded one of the most prestigious fellowships in Australia, has lectured at Harvard and Berkeley (all on the net to verify) and has the highest grades in his classes (please check SIPA´s website) has no academic caliber? That is very personal, not neutral. It turns out that Professor Pinho could not have promoted a joint project Columbia- EDP because he had never considered academia as an option and, subsequently, had several other offers from prestigious US universities. He left government in 2009 unexpectedly and the date of the project Columbia-EDP is 2010/ 11, therefore the dates do not match. SIPA Annual 201/ 11 report states there was joint project, not a specific endowment. However, that can be easily checked by contacting Columbia, Yale, Georgetown, etc. because in the US the rules are very transparent. Another link reports a lectures series supported by the Columbia- EDP joint project and the editor takes this to suggest that Professor Pinho was himself sponsored. This is serious misleading. The local press even reported that he was awarded a Chair and was making $ 3 million, which is very embarrassing for Wikipedia because Chairs are for tenure track academics and $3 million is 10x the salary of a Nobel Prize. This is local politics, by no way Wikipedia standards. This type of information may be exciting in Portugal, however it is very embarrassing for Wikipedia in the US because it refers to something that cannot happen. On having, or not having "Columbia caliber", nobody would teach several classes there for 6 consecutive years if he was not evaluated positively. This discussion is about personal views about academic standards and are by no ways part of a neutral biography. Previous versions of the article stated that he had no doctoral degree, was adept of ballroom dancing, included personal attacks on his family, etc. as can be easily checked. What is the purpose? For example, "he had a car accident somewhere in the late 80's looks very tacky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usare (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above essentially amounts to “ARGUING FROM AUTHORITY” further suggesting the hagiographic edits are being made by the subject himself to self-promote in blatant Conflict of Interest. Who else would be in a position to know that ”Professor Pinho…had never considered academia as an option “ or that he “had several other offers from prestigious US universities”??? or to dispute that Manuel Pinho likes “BALLROOM DANCING” as opposed to dancing in general, which he is on record saying “I can dance and I love to do it.” ??? Regarding the “DOCTORAL DEGREE,” it is not explicitly verifiable anywhere and, given the subject’s propensity to overplay himself here on Wikipedia, it cannot be taken for granted.  Moreover since in France post-graduate attributions are different than in the US, all he may have is a MASTER’s DEGREE equivalent.  Did the Deans at Columbia and Georgetown actually see any transcripts???Arbitratusrex (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the DISCUSSION on Manuel Pinho’s hiring by Columbia having been paid for by EDP-Energias de Portugal, these are the VERIFIABLE FACTS (3rd party references in User:Ricardo DDT Salgado’s edits of January 16, 2016 that were immediately supressed to restore hagiographic versions):

2005-09:  Manuel Pinho is minister of economics with authority over energy issues. In that capacity, he dealt extensively with Portugal’s main electricity company EDP-Energias de Portugal which at the time was a public enterprise and whose chairman-António Mexia- was a former associate of Manuel Pinho at the Espirito Santo Financial Group management and who was cleared by Manuel Pinho for the EDP chairman position despite belonging to the main opposition party. António Mexia thus had a motive and was in a position to authorize a sizable grant from EDP to the personal benefit of Manuel Pinho.

2 July 2009: Manuel Pinho has a bizarre outburst in the Portuguese Parliament and is forced to resign from his minister position and to apologize on national TV later the same day.

June 2010: SIPA-Columbia U announces that  “Portuguese energy company EDP (Energias de Portugal) makes a multiyear gift to SIPA to support new teaching, research, lectures, and conferences”  (source: SIPA 2009-10 Annual Report, p.5)

13 August 2010: Portuguese business daily newspaper Jornal de Negócios publishes an article with headline “EDP pays for Manuel Pinho’s classes in Columbia”. TVI news channel follows suit with an online post with headline “Pinho goes teach in New York: EDP Pays!”

Early September 2010: Manuel Pinho starts teaching at SIPA as Adjunct Visiting Professor.

Late September 2010: SIPA’s 2009-10 Annual Report is released disclosing the first tranche of EDP-Energias multiyear gift (NOT “endowment”) for an undisclosed amount between $100,000-$999,999 (donor list, p. 32)

3 October 2010: Following the release of SIPA's 2009-10 Annual Report, Portuguese daily newspaper Correio da Manhã publishes a front page article with headline “3 million euros from EDP for Manuel Pinho.” That same day, a Portuguese parliamentarian calls for an official enquiry into “EDP’s financing of Manuel Pinho,” and EDP-Energias issues a statement saying the Columbia University gift was part of its "global strategy to work closely with institutions of higher-learning in the markets where it operates.” It neither confirmed or denied that the gift was made with a view to hiring Manuel Pinho.

4 October 2010: Portuguese daily newspaper Diário Notícias reports on the parliamentarian's calls for an enquiry and on EDP-Energias explanatory statement with headline: “Sponsorship of EDP-Energias to Manuel Pinho generates controversy.”

7 October 2010: An op-ed in Expresso weekly newspaper accuses Manuel Pinho of agreeing, when he was minister, to excessively high retail electricity prices to subsidize renewable energy production by EDP-Energias de Portugal, thus suggesting the multi-year gift to Columbia University was EDP’s personal payback to Manuel Pinho. It also notes that EDP's money was used to create a Masters program tailored for Pinho to teach and that the program included “semesters in Lisbon” for “americanos” (Columbia Faculty members), which would explain why Columbia University went along with Manuel Pinho’s self-promoting arrangement.

2010-11 academic year: The second tranche of EDP-Energias multiyear gift is disbursed for an undisclosed amount in excess of $500,000 (SIPA 2010-11 Annual Report, p. 35). Manuel Pinho remains listed as “Visiting Adjunct Professor.”

2011-12 academic year: The third tranche of EDP-Energias multiyear gift is disbursed for an undisclosed amount between $100,000 and $499,999 (SIPA 2011-12 Annual Report, p. 39). Manuel Pinho remains listed as “Visiting Adjunct Professor.”

2012-13 academic year No gift from EDP-Energias reported by SIPA, but for the first time gifts are reported from Chinese sources China International and Culture Development Foundation and Qinfu Ding, each in excess of $1 million (SIPA, 2012-13 Annual Report, p39). Coincidentally or not, 2012 is also the year EDP-Energias was acquired by Chinese investors and Pinho starts teaching at the Beijing Foreign Studies Institute (according to his own bio). Moreover, a change of government in Portugal in 2011 would have made it politically impossible for António Mexia to continue to directly support Manuel Pinho with EDP-Energias money. Pinho remains listed by SIPA as “Visiting Adjunct Professor” (p. 9)

2013-14 academic year: No gifts from EDP-Energias reported, but again a gift from the China International and Culture Development Foundation in excess of $500,000 (SIPA 2013-14 Annual Report, p. 55). Pinho remains listed as “Visiting Adjunct Professor.”.

2014-15 academic year: No gifts from EDP-Energias or from Chinese sources reported in the SIPA 2014-15 Annual Report. Manuel Pinho is downgraded from “Adjunct Professor” to “part-time Senior Research Scholar” (SITA website).

2015-16 academic year: Manuel Pinho starts teaching at Georgetown University as FLAD Visiting Professor (source: Georgetown). 'FLAD' is the Portuguese acronym for American-Portuguese Development Foundation (which means Manuel Pinho is being paid by US taxpayers money to go strut his stuff at Georgetown and then here on Wikipedia). At Columbia University, he remains demoted to “part-time Senior Research Scholar.”

To sum up: “no money, no honey”... In the case of Manuel Pinho, the timing of his hiring and demotion at Columbia University coincide exactly with the timing of “gifts” from EDP-Energias de Portugal and Chinese sources. In my view, other than the ethical issues involved for Pinho, Columbia, EDP and the possible Chinese donors, the public controversy such gifts generated in the Portuguese Press and in Portuguese Parliament make them more Wikipedia-worthy than the fact that the subject is a professor at Columbia, etc. I propose to edit the article to note the appointment and gift "timing coincidences” without attributing causality and let users draw their own conclusions. Any other thoughts?Arbitratusrex (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

-THE AWARD THAT DOES NOT EXIST: Another example of the deception and carelessness being employed in this wikipage One of Pinho's self-promoting highlights for "his" Wikipedia page has been about him being awarded the “The John Wiley Eminent Fellowship in Australia”, which… DOES NOT EXIST. There is a “RODNEY Wiley Fellowship,” but such confusion further underscores Pinho’s eagerness to self-promote on Wikipedia without even bothering with fact-checking or referencing. In any event, according to the University of Queensland website, the “Rodney Wiley” is a funding source for visiting lecturers and does not claim to be an award for academic excellence as Manuel Pinho would have you believe in his edits. Nobody even knows who Rodney Wiley is or was (maybe Pinho could start him a Wikipedia page). Accordingly, I deleted the reference to the “JOHN Wiley” award and would suggest other editors not mention the “Rodney Wiley” unless it can be documented from a credible third party, NOT Manuel Pinho’s self-posted sources like his personal website or the Portugal government page he had made for himself when he was minister and that he uses here in Wikipedia for his hagiographic references, including his alleged Doctoral Degree which, given all the disinformation in "his" Wikipedia page, may well be another of his self-promotional fabrications.Arbitratusrex (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone else has anything to say? I am just a Wikipedia user who dislikes self-promoters and who does not want to be identified from my regular contributions as I knew Manuel Pinho would continue kicking and screaming at any non-hagiographic edits…It appears, however, he has gone from using Wikipedia for self-promotion to using it for rewriting of history and disinformation.  He deleted the explicit mention of the cuckolding gesture in Parliament (his most Wikipedia-worthy biographic event) and seems bent on conveying that he was NOT forced to resign even though it is referenced (and stands to reason!) that he was. If anyone is feeling sorry for the subject, take a look at his Portuguese-Wikipedia page, https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Pinho  which is in pristine shameless self-promoting condition without mention of the cuckolding event or the self-arranged grant to go teach in Columbia or the Panama Papers…but with all the trivial honors he wants to show off...Arbitratusrex (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I suspect that a big reason that the editors have stopped their crusade of COI is that the SPI I filed concluded that the accounts were largely the same person, getting them blocked. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 06:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Good job for undertaking the due diligence on what was pretty much evident. If you had gone back in time further you would have found another sock-puppet named BernardinoSoares which is the name of the communist parliamentarian targeted by Manuel Pinho's cuckolding gesture. Cheeky fellow Manuel Pinho isn't he?Arbitratusrex (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is strongly biased. 1. Introduction. An advocate is by nature self- proclaimed. Therefore the term self proclaimed is redundant. 2. Introduction. Footnote n.6 mentions that "he received around 180,000 Euros from a ESFG related company. The expression "exposed to Panama papers" is wrong and non verifiable. 3. He did not ask a lump sump pension payment, instead he claimed the right to a pension. 4. No verifiable source confirms that he was involved in the 2nd stage of the privatization of BES. Non verifiable. 5. Renewable energies in Portugal consist only of hydro and wind, almost no solar. They have one of the lowest prices in Europe. please verify. 01:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangerie12345 (talk • contribs)


 * Welcome to the discussion but please understand that you have to be presumed to be another of Manuel Pinho’s sockpuppets consistent with this page's 6+ years history of registering new accounts exclusively for self-promotion, which is exactly what you seem to be doing. Having said that, your joining the discussion represents an improvement over the previous sockpuppeteering and your unbiased and referenced contributions will be welcome. Regarding your points above: 1. “self-procaimed advocate” see your point. Redrafted. 2. “exposed in Panama papers…” that’s exactly what happened according to the reference. But redrafted not to use “expose” 3.	“lump sum pension” Redrafted to avoid "lump sum" and to update on latest litigation developments. 4. “2nd stage of BES privatization” See your point. Redrafted 5. "energy sources and cost" the high-cost is not for renewables generation but for general end-user electricity tariffs, which in Portugal are much higher than Spain and allows EDP-Energias (Manuel Pinho's Columbia sponsor) "excessive rents" as ascertained by the previous Portuguese government in the referenced source. Draft stands as drafted. 6.	Additional point for your ongoing Wikipedia education: It is not good Wikipedia manners to tell other users to “please verify,” especially coming from someone who has done so much to disinform on this very subject. If you think information should be “verified” please provide alternative references yourself. In Wikipedia users are peers, NOT your university research assistants or ministerial yes-men.Arbitratusrex (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2 SUGGESTIONS to the attention of the senior administrators: 1- Might be time to remove the non-neutral tag, which was placed when the article was "shamelessly self-promoting" ? As it is now, the article contains ALL of the self-promoting FACTS but counterweighed by critical FACTS......and 2- Might be time to re-rate the Article above Start-class? In my opinion, this would be warranted in view of the wealth of information it contains on a relatively obscure subject and the 60+ references. Perhaps seeing "his" Wikipedia page rated higher, the subject will shy away from future self-promotion and vandalism. Big thanks to all administrators and users who contributed to making this Wikipage a case-study on how shameless self promoting disinformation can be turned into a thorough bibliographical source through factual research and vigilant due dilligence.Arbitratusrex (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can remove the tag yourself and you can request reassessment by a member of wikiproject biography here. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 20:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edits. I agree that the article has much trivial info that could be removed, including stuff I contributed to counterweigh trivial stuff already there which I did not feel at liberty to remove. Example: the declaration of support from “a group of miners” which I balanced with the good-riddance statement from “THE miners’ union.” Both are true but trivial. As is the naming of small town streets after Pinho. Your removal of the sketch however is, in my opinion, a major informational loss. For all his accomplishments as a banker and minister, Pinho’s main biographical event is the infamous “horns in Parliament” outburst that became an ICONIC image disseminated by the press worldwide and that comes up right away when he is googled. A verbal description is not sufficient for a reader to visualize the enormity of the gesture that rocked Portuguese politics for a few days. ????Would an even more abstract sketch be allowed????? In my view, were it not for the horns in Parliament gesture, Pinho’s Wikipedia-page would be a good candidate for deletion given its long track record of disinformation and the fact that most Portuguese ex-ministers or visiting professors don’t have pages on English Wikipedia, including most of Pinho’s former Cabinet colleagues. In any event, it was never my intention to learn or post this much about Pinho, but at least now the page presents accurate facts and sources in contrast with the shamelessly hagiographic highlight-job that remains ‘his’ Portuguese-Wikipedia page…Arbitratusrex (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)