Talk:Noynoying

Neutrality disputed
This article is political propagandist in nature and not neutral. It aims to attack other parties or a leader in a country an therefore speedy deletion is recommended. Ric Padgett (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On what basis did you reach that conclusion, if I may ask? --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not propagandist and biased. As you can see, comments and quotes from the supporters of the named public official is seen in the "reception" page. Proper citations are also seen in the whole article. The page is "biased" if thought of as something used to berate the official. But as wikipedia is concerned, it is a notable term used and significant enough to warrant an article. If this is biased, then university pages preaching their high rankings such as the wiki Harvard, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Yale, and the University of Michigan pages are biased as well. --- visiting user 25 ... EDIT: I propose the "neutrality disputed" tag to be taken off as it is clear that based on the talks page that the article is not biased.

In my humble opinion I still see it as a name calling and not neutral in nature. Joefran4 (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Noynoying" is a term that is used to demean a public personality. That is what's biased. But as for the article itself, again as I have said, it has considered both opinions and judgements from both sides. The article is therefore not biased and propagandist. The term is alsoc significant enough for the public official's tenure in office. Next time, please explain your point using valid reasons. --- visiting user 25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.209.204 (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems the issue has been resolved. Remove tag? – H T  D  00:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute regards the neutrality of the article, not the act
Relevant wikidoctrine: Neutral_point_of_view

I agree that the act itself is not neutral, and I agree that the act is propagandist in nature. If I may raise a point of order, however, the question is whether the article is neutral, or is, recognizing the effort to slowly improve it, in the process of being made neutral. The act and the article referring to the act are two different things. (Also, the question of whether the phenomenon/act is notable is a different discussion. In the interest of keeping this discussion organized, I will create a new heading for that discussion below.) - Alternativity (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * NPOV is frequently misconstrued in this manner. Look at what happened during the SOPA/PIPA protests. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. And, if I understand your reply correctly, I agree that we should not continue to misconstrue it. (Er... I'm not actually sure I got you right, Sky. Hehe.) - Alternativity (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Unfortunately, neutrality is misconstrued on Wikipedia: NPOV only means editorial neutrality, meaning that an article should be written from a neutral point of view which can easily encapsulate the topic from several angles.  It does not mean remaining neutral on political topics, nor is it refusing to protest because we sacrifice "neutrality". --Sky Harbor (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's any question on how the article neutrally treats the subject, this should be the final chance. The tag has been there for far too long with no real apparent reason other than the subject of the article isn't neutral, which is not the proper use of the tag.
 * P.S.: Any arguments on undue weight issues should also be here. – H T  D  13:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have said in my comments above (by visitng user 25), I propose that the tag be taken off as it is clear that the article has not been slanted towards the opposition or the official's supporters. It has adequate opinions from both sides and has adequate citing. -- visiting User 25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.209.204 (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Off-topic: Visiting User 25, I highly suggest you register for a Wikipedia account. Thanks. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems the issue has been resolved. Remove tag? – H T  D  00:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems that this issue is resolved and I applaud the move to remove the tag. And yes Sky Harbor, I at last created an account and I look forward in helping edit other pages as well. thanks. VISITINGUSER25 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"POV" and "Undue Weight" tags have been removed as per neutrality dispute result
The discussion has established that although the act of Noynoying is inherently non-neutral, the article itself, as presently written, is reasonably neutral. The "POV" and "Undue Weight" tags have thus been removed. The "Notability" and "Recentism" tags remain in place. (If anyone wishes to contest this, you're open to continue to present your arguments here.) Thank you. - Alternativity (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability disputed
Relevant wikidoctrine: Notability

I am opening up a new section in which we can discuss whether the Noynoying act is notable enough to be worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Please add your comments regarding the Noynoying's notability below. - Alternativity (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no arguments here. Remove tag? – H T  D  13:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that "Noynoying" is an integral part of the official's tenure in office. There are other pages pointing out the criticisms and controversies of other people, therefore I believe that the page should stand alone as long as no other broad, encompassing page is set up. --- visiitng user 25
 * In my opinion, H  T  D, most of the arguments regarding Neutrality are actually confused arguments about the article's Notability. Which is the more valid argument in favor of deleting this article. But I agree with "visiitng user 25" (whom I would also like to enjoin to register for an account on Wikipedia).  This campaign by his critics has become an integral part of the official's tenure in office, and so the article should be kept.  I keep my vote provisional keep, the proviso being that we continue to make the article more neutral and watch it so that it remains so. - Alternativity (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Should the statement about the DVD and TV remotes be included?
I chanced upon the France24 coverage on Noynoying and, using Google Translate, a paragraph reads:

''To defend against these "noynoyeurs", the President's team posted a photo of Noynoy concentrated at his office with his nose in the files. But no luck, users have chosen the remote and the DVD set on his table.''

I initially thought including that paragraph would make the article imbalanced. What do you think? Starczamora (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh! So that's what they meant! :D That paragraph was a bit confusing. I shall endeavor to explain its context in the article.- Alternativity (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed Juan Tamad sentence fragment
I am aware that the sentence "It added the "Noynoying" term also taps into old Philippine folk tales about Juan Tamad, who tries to get by doing the least amount of work to get by" came from an earlier draft of this article. What used to be a whole section had been reduced to a single sentence in the lede. I found it difficult to work with because it was not thematically appropriate there, and because the grammar of it disrupted the flow of the lede. In the end, I decided to remove it in the interest of making the article adhere better to WP:NPOV, and because the assertion apparently did not have a reference. Just FYI. - Alternativity (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Article must be deleted
I believe this article must be deleted as it violates lots of WP: conduct, policies & etc... such as personal attack, civility, harassment, and libelous threat. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view. No Filipino in his/her right mind would believe that Noynoying has nothing to do with political propaganda thus it is not neutral. In fact, the word itself is derived from a political person's name which constitutes personal attack, incivility, and harassment. Therefore, such article should not be given a place in Wikipedia. — Rammaumtalkstalk 15:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's like saying the article on gerrymandering should be deleted because the basis for the word is Elbridge Gerry, and if he were alive today, he'd take offense at his name being used for such a word. --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 20:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That would also be like getting rid of "Reaganomics" because it is politcally right leaning towards the conservative party. Since Reaganomics is widely recognized as his style of economics, it belongs in wikipedia. Noynoying, albeit new, is widely recognized in a country as Aquino style of governing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.173.167 (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's pushing the analogy: the President has only been in office for nearly two years and we can't jump to such conclusions yet. However, the coverage that the use of the term has received in local and foreign media does give an indication that the word does meet the notability guidelines: whether or not it's "offensive" as a question which should not be answered within the scope of the article. --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 08:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that I am only implying what was said in WP:Conduct, Policies and etc... It seems to be, in my understanding of your words, that we can violate WP:Rules & regulations simply because, it has been violated already. My word is final, I do not support violating WP:RR! — Rammaumtalkstalk 14:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:RR is WikiProject Trains, but I digress. The point however is that I fail to see how having an article on Noynoying is tantamount to "insulting" the President, or launching personal attacks against him.  Those are issues which can be addressed through the corpus of existing policy to ensure that coverage of the article is as fair and as comprehensive as possible.  That does not happen when the article is deleted. --<b style="color:#0066ff;">Sky Harbor</b> (<b style="color:#0066ff;">talk</b>) 15:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Article must not be deleted. The word is politically right and widely accepted by public. Even if this word will be deleted here in wikipedia the same will be used in other medium. Bonvallite (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Recentism tag
Are there any arguments on why the recentism tag has to stay? – H T  D  13:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see several,  H T  D , but I feel they're best discussed under the Notability heading. Just IMHO. Hehe. - Alternativity (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems the issue has gone stale. Remove tag? – H T  D  00:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tag removed -- Esemono (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Mar Roxas" definition of Noynoying
User Totenggaleng has been editing the lead to include the "Mar Roxas definition" of Noynoying as stated here. I already informed in his talk page that since Noynoying was not introduced as something positive toward President Aquino, it would be wise to remove it in the lead and keep it in the Reception section. However, I think he will edit it again. Starczamora (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User Starczamora sent me Totenggaleng a message about how she feels the article should be formed. True, she said the alternate definition of Mar Roxas should be be included in the reactions portion. She said I could state my case if I feel otherwise. But instead of waiting for me to state my case, she wantonly went on with the editing. Yes, I placed the alternate definition of Noynoying back to the definitions portion, for the very basic reason that it is an offer for definition. Otherwise, the neutrality of the article would always be questioned. I did reply to her Starczamora, but instead of discussing the points of my case, she comes running here. I don't see anything wrong with putting the alternate definition in the lead; just because the lead carries the subhead 'Definition." I think it's ridiculous to put alternate definitions under reactions. totenggaleng (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. You (Totenggaleng and Starczamora) are both correct to make immediate changes to the article. Wikipedia encourages you to do so. The wikidoctrine that says that is Be_bold.
 * Regarding "Definition" (Relevant wikidoctrine: UNDUE ) Let me explain why Mar Roxas' response belongs in the reactions section.  Mar Roxas' definition is just a reaction because it's just ONE MAN giving the definition, whereas a definition must be accepted BY THE MAJORITY OF AN ENITRE CULTURE. If Mar Roxas' definition comes into WIDESPREAD use and is referred to by many reputable media sources, then it would be an acceptable definition which belongs in the lede section. (There are clear wikipedia guidelines on how this is determined.) Otherwise, it's just another guy giving a reaction. Even if he calls it an alternative definition.  And even if he were the wisest man on earth.
 * Regarding "unfair": Even if the ACT of Noynoying is unfair, this is just a DESCRIPTION of the act. (Relevant wikidoctrine: UNDUE ) This article only describes the ACT known as Noynoying as reported by media sources. Just because it's on wikipedia doesn't mean that the act's accusation is true or untrue. Personally, I don't think it's true. I personally think that Noynoy is sticking to his policies.  (I could be wrong, but it seems to me that he's actively pro-oil-deregulation, upholdng that policy in spite of criticism.) BUT EVEN IF the accusation is unfair or untrue, that doesn't mean this article is not neutral, because THE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY THAT THE ACCUSATION IS TRUE. It says ONLY that critics have used the Noynoying gimmick to express the accusation. And that because the gimmick has received international media attention and extensive use within the culture, an article DESCRIBING it (but NOT saying it's correct) is now on Wikipeida.
 * Another (extreme) example: If Mar Roxas invents a meme that says Noynoy is the Philippines' divinely appointed savior, names that meme and defines it, and it receives worldwide media attention under that name, and makes a significant impact in contemporary popular culture, then whether or not it is true (that Noynoy is the Philippines' divinely appointed savior), Noynoy's critics cannot call the article unfair. Because that, too, would only DESCRIBE THE ACT, but NOT say whether it's wrong or right.
 * Just my two cents' on the relevant wikidoctrines. Please note that I haven't actually changed the article myself. I could  be bold, but in this case, I think I'd prefer for others to do the actual article editing. (Largely because I'm late for an appointment. hehe.) - Alternativity (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

BBC World Service mention
Thought interested editors maybe interested in using this reliable news source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I actually submitted an interesting hook I found from this source for potential DYK. Starczamora (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposing merge with Benigno Aquino III article
I nominate that the article Noynoying be merged with article Benigno Aquino III. My reasoning for proposing this merger is that there already exists an article about the subject of the criticism which is Benigno Aquino III, and such, a section discussing criticisms, such as Noynoying, etc, should be created there, instead of creating a separate article about it. Hoping for your kind consideration, thank you. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Noynoying is a protest action/meme that has fully established itself at this point and has independent notability of Benigno. Furthermore, this article has far too much information to put it into Benigno's article, as it would be undue weight. What would be better is to have a paragraph summary of this subject (per WP:SPLIT) in Benigno's article and include a main page hatnote over there. That way, there's no confusion and readers can easily find this article if they want to. Silver  seren C 18:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree and Withdrawing proposal to merge. I agree with Silver seren's option and have withdrawn proposal to merge the two aforementioned articles.Greg The Webmaster (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

IE reaction from media
This section is too long. Can we delete the reactions from non-notable people? Look at entries for movies: they do not add the reactions of all reviewers who reviewed the movie. They just add the notable ones, like Ebert, Variety, etc. Mvching (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Noynoying. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120326215501/http://www.mb.com.ph:80/articles/355436/noynoying-works-against-the-filipino to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/355436/noynoying-works-against-the-filipino
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120327103926/http://www.manilastandardtoday.com:80/2012/03/26/beyond-noynoying/ to http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/2012/03/26/beyond-noynoying/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)