Talk:Rigoberto Tiglao

Dubious sources
The following sources have a clear bias against Tiglao as they have been accused by Tiglao of being biased and/or puppet organizations:

Discuss! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Vera Files is a verified signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) at Poynter Institute, which requires passing very high and stringent standards which you can view here:, including non-partisanship and transparency. Vera files is one of the only 3 fact checking partners of Meta Platforms (Facebook) in the Philippines and is used by Google as a fact checker, and you may view their Google fact checks here: . Vera Files is Reliable sources, even if accused by Tiglao. Just because Tiglao has accused them of these things does not mean Tiglao's accusations are true (like being biased or a puppet organization as you state), especially given that Tiglao has been fact-checked by multiple other reputable organizations and individuals over the past decade. -Object404 (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To corroborate here's the IFCN signatory page that confirms Vera Files is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network's Code of Principles which includes non-partisanship. This is assessed annually and Vera Files has already been assessed as adhering to those principles 5 times since 2017. In fact, Ellen Tordesillas, who is a co-founder of Vera Files, has actually recommended Tiglao's first book on Vera Files so Vera Files has no single-minded bias against Tiglao. I actually think that it is Tiglao that is the dubious party here since he has been fact-checked to have written untrue statements multiple times by numerous journalists and organizations; clearly Tiglao has an axe to grind against Vera Files. --seav (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know the background of the claim that Vera Files is a biased "puppet" source. Puppet of whom exactly? If it's a wild accusation with no corroboration by reliable source... you have your answer, I guess. Jjlang (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please pay attention to what I wrote. I'm not saying Vera Files can't be used elsewhere in other articles. I'm saying they have a clear and obvious bias against the subject of this article, and therefore shouldn't be used as a source here. They are not neutral about this topic. Tiglao has made multiple claims that they are biased or influenced in multiple ways, so I question their neutrality about this particular topic. It's possible they are unbiased for other topics, but I doubt they can be considered neutral and/or fair-minded when it comes to articles about this particular topic.
 * Going in order, the first article I noted above liken him to Joseph Goebbels and uses extremely biased phrasing and language throughout the article. It's also an opinion piece, not an actual news article ("Commentary" at the top). The second barely mentions him in passing and shouldn't be used for really anything because of that. The third calls him untrustworthy because he claims Vera Files is supported by the CIA. This supports what I mentioned earlier about their clear bias against him because of his claims about Vera Files. The fourth is an opinion piece (note the "Commentary" at the top), basically one person stating why they don't like or trust Tiglao. It's not an actual news article at all. The fifth is probably the best out of all of them, and may actually be relevant to the article. Regardless of the usage of Vera Files sources in other articles, I don't think they should be used in this specific article because of this very obvious bias against Tiglao. If the claims they are making are actually correct, it shouldn't be all that hard to find other sources that support these claims. ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While I would understand a case against commentary articles, I don't think that the findings cited from the second article concerning Tiglao should be dismissed as dubious. As other examples in the wikipedia article have pointed-out, Tiglao has been fact-checked multiple times as having propagated false information - many of which involve either former President Ferdinand Marcos (the father of the current Philippine President) or opposition elements such as Leni Robredo, Antonio Trillanes, etc. Perhaps a reference to the research work being discussed by Vera Files can be added on top of the current material?
 * I would also agree with you that the fifth reference in question is indeed relevant, and should no longer be labelled as dubious. Copies of the TJRC reports that acknowledge the massacre are currently accessible online thru the tjrc.ph/report link, if these are necessary to add (Listening Process Report)(2016 Report).
 * I think it is important to our discussion to point out that there were edit attempts last November 16 to remove entire sections from the fake news and disinformation section. The comment attached to the IP address suggests that the editor was offended at how the article was written. That being said, I would agree with @Object404 and @Seav in the idea that sources can't be labelled dubious just because the subject of the article accused them of being biased (against them). To invalidate materials because they are not friendly to the subject does not equate to neutrality. Immaterial Chicken (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * by that logic of yours, all of CNN's articles should be purged as citation sources from the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article because Trump has called CNN "fake news". This means that all a subject needs to do is to criticize a citation source, and it then cannot be used as a citation in an article on the subject on Wikipedia. I don't think this logic flies. I do recognize that this is a Biography of Living Persons article and that we should be extra careful with what's written on it. I've removed the item sourced from #1 from the "Reception by other journalists" section as such, and am reviewing how the article can be made more neutral. -Object404 (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"Reception by other journalists" section
After reconsidering things, am wondering if this section should remain on the article and is appropriate for it. I'm heavily leaning towards its deletion as being superfluous. May I get comments and discussion from other users before deleting it? -Object404 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing discussion about this section and the article at the WikiProject Philippines talk page. Kindly view discussion at mentioned link. -Object404 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing said section as there are no objections. -Object404 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Reducing non-essential entries in the article
Having created the article, I would like to delete a number of items I added to it as I think they are non-essential to the subject, especially as a BLP article. I hope this is fine. -Object404 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)