Talk:Rogelio Roxas

Unencyclopedic
Article is based on Roxas v. Marcos appeal transcripts. Actual information about Roxas is omitted from the article. Born in (year?), born in what city, how long in service and what did they do while in the service? Other pertinent information has been left out as well. Jim (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not left out, just unavailable online. Would you like to help improve the article? Your assistance is highly appreciated. I'll allow the tag to stay for three days. If no one objects after that time period, I'm removing the tag. -- • Kurt Guirnela •  ‡ Talk  05:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This non-verifiable article is in direct violation of Wikipedia policies. Please refer to WP:NOT and WP:OR. Jim (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This editor requests an RFC tag be placed before Admin actions, or the creator of this article removes Unencyclopedic tag. Jim (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with this article except a stronger source should be used in place of Timelines if possible. This is not a delete candidate, and the unencyclopedic tag is misapplied in this case.  Professor marginalia (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article creator is removing unencyclopedic tag. -- • Kurt Guirnela •  ‡ Talk  02:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Goodness, that was a quick three days! Jim (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a vested interest in these articles. I noticed all your contributions center on the following. Please read WP:COI. -- • Kurt Guirnela •  ‡ Talk  08:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point is moot. You have a stake in some of those same articles, as well. If you could produce a WP reference as to NOT editing in like subjects or genres, that would be dandy. You might want to review WP:HAR. This article still breaches the WP:OR and WP:NOT policies. Jim (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well. To each his own. If you truly believe the article to be unencyclopedic, nominate it to WP:AfD. However, it is better to light just one little candle, than to complain of the darkness. -- • Kurt Guirnela •  ‡ Talk  03:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Is article encyclopedic and sources used
Jim (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To anyone concerned: JimBobUSA is disrespectful of other editors and WP policy, as shown by his conduct at Talk:Yamashita's gold. It appears that he may have some kind of agenda in relation to these issues. I suggest that we ignore this AfD nomination and retain the article Grant  |  Talk  06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Grant, this section is for discussing this article. If you are so inclined to whine and complain because I did some editing on your article, that you did not agree with, I suggest you create another section and title it appropriately. I also suggest you view WP:HAR and pay special attention to the definition of Wikistalking. Jim (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the article and its sources I ran across a few problems: At the least, this article needs considerably better sourcing, since most of the information if only found in the court documents, which are a primary source. Since there is only this single claim to notability which currently doesn't seem to have been widely publicized, this probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines. An AfD might be the best way to go. Shell babelfish 03:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the text sourced to the Timeline Phillipines is actually supported by that source.
 * None of the sources mention Roxas's imprisonment
 * The last source, the Honolulu Star Bulletin, is actually from the Editorials section; not generally considered reliable.

The Golden Budha Corporation
The Golden Budha Corporation (albeit spelling) is the correct spelling of the corporation started by Roger Roxas, and is legally binding. The Golden Buddha is not the registered name of the corporation. The correct corporation name, including spelling should be used Jim 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * State of Georgia, 2007 Corporation Annual Registration filing for the Golden Budha Corporation can be found here: Golden Budha Corporation Jim 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Baguio City Court proceeding regarding the buddha
In regards to Jose Roxas. There are several paragraphs related to this incident in the Roxas v. Marcos appeal. See section 1 (background) number 7. You may wish to use this, as it is a more reliable source. Jim 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Copious Amounts of POV-pushing
The article is relying on the casual reader to interpret court documents. Opinions in the article are not supported by independent third-party sources. Jim (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Refer to the cited sources and the discussion page for Yamashita's gold in response to the claimed POV pushing.

New Section
The most significant thing about this man is his role as the named plaintiff in Roxas v. Marcos, a massive litigation. It deserves its own section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.161.184 (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why all the Fairy Tales?
Why are all the wiki articles that are of a Filipino nature such fairy tales? Filipinos should be ashamed!184.155.120.157 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Article is Vandalized
ATTENTION! The article Rogelio Roxas is vandalized. Based in revision history, it was edited by a user from certain IP address. Some details were edited and seems to be non-sense. I hope this could be responded immediately. ---Raider000 (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)