Talk:Vicente S. Santos Jr.

Use of surname
Per WP:SURNAME, individuals are to be referred to by their full name (including any rank or title) the first time they are mentioned in an article which in a biography is usually the very first sentence and by their surname (i.e., family name or last name) thereafter. "Santos" is used throughout the article after the lede, so there's no real reason to refer to him by his full rank at the beginning of the section about his family. If there is some reason, his full name and rank needs to be mentioned which cannot be explained using text, please discuss it here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, hence I am including his rank and full name in the first sentence, I don't understand why did the previous editors removed the Rank (in the full name) of the first sentence of my father's biography. 03:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)

COI issues
In post made to a file page on Wikimedia Commons,  says he is the son of the subject of this article. COI editing is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia per se, but it is something highly because it can be hard for those connected to the subjects of Wikipedia articles to maintain a neutral point of view when editing. For example, in this edit, Fabyan17 adds content about himself to the article in manner which seems more self-promotional than encyclopedic. Much of the information in the "Marriage and family", "Spiritual perspective", "Retirement" and "Death" sections appears to have been added by Fabyan17. This information is likely true, but none it is supported by any citations to independent reliable sources for verification purposes; Moreover, some of this information is probably not worth mentioning per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

In addition, much of the content in the "Defense of Camp Emilio Aguinaldo - August 1987" section seems to be a single quote from a book about Santos' involvement in the event. It's questionable whether such a large quote is needed per WP:UNDUE and the entire section seems to be more point-of-view than neutrally worded. Personal photos have also be added throughout the article which seem a bit unnecessary per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTGALLERY since their encyclopedic relevance is also not clear.

I've added some WikiProject banners to the top of this talk page, and I am going to ask some of the members of those projects to assess this article and help clean it up a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gday. Yes I agree there are issues here. Not excluding the issues listed above to me the block quote does seem excessive, the list of military courses really seems trivial (there are not something most of our military biographies include), and the images lack evidence of permission and will likely be deleted unless it is added. I had a go at copyediting it in places to try to improve the language and remove some of the more obvious POV issues but there is still work req'd. Unfortunately though I do not have time to give to this at the moment though. Anotherclown (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it strays somewhat further into hagiography than most articles so I took some out in favour of descriptive writing in one section but it reads like a refugee from the Readers' Digest....Keith-264 (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no COI issues involved, since the information of the biography are from sources and references that have been properly cited. People who are part of the family or heirs of the subject person, in fact, give credence and validate the biography of the subject individual. Please read the "authorized biography" part in the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography  01:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The COI has to do with you trying to edit an article written about your father. What you've linked to above is a Wikipedia article about "Biography", but that's not really relevant. What matters is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, specifically WP:COI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is relevant, since the wiki article written about my father is called "BIOGRAPHY", hence it is a guide / reference in writing biographies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography  explicitly stated that "Authorized Biographies" is written with the permission, cooperation, and at times, participation of a subject or a subject's heirs. The information of the subject article have proper sources and references cited. Hence, pls do not insist conflict of interest, because all official biographies of persons are always verified and has participation of the heirs of the subject personality. Thanks  02:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)
 * Biography is a Wikipedia article about biographies, nothing more and nothing less. Wikipedia articles are required to be written in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of style. You do have a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia because once again you are the son of Santos editing the Wikipedia article written about him. it looks like the sources cited in the article are a bit questionable and much of the information, etc. is actually not supported by independent reliable sources. Almost all of the sources cited in the article are to show Santos has written certain books, but there are practically no sources cited for anything else. Where is that information coming from and how can it be verified? Please note that what we may personally know to be true does not matter when it comes to Wikipedia. What generally matters is what can be verified through the aforementioned independent reliable sources. This is an Wikipedia article about your father, but it's not intended to be a memorial to him. It needs to be written in accordance with Wikipedia's 5 pillars, not any one editor's particular point of view.


 * Finally, there seems to be a problem with your chosen signature format, which is why User:SignBot is coming around and re-signing your posts. I suggest you take a look at WP:SIGN and make sure your signature is according to relevant policy. It looks like you tried to correct things by adding  23:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)
 * I am not subjective, and I think you don't know what impartial means. It is not only me disagreeing with your edits, but 3 other editors and 1 admin (Bishonen). Ok, maybe your sources are good, but most of your addition (including the military training part) are unsourced. For example, this part, “Useless,” he muttered as the word flashed in his mind. Then everything blanked out. is unsourced. And about the NPOV, there are some content that are biased, like Aside from fulfilling his military duties, Santos was also a prolific writer.. The bold is mine. This article is about a person, and we strictly remove unsourced material. Pokéfan95 (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi pokefan, the one that you are citing "For example, this part, “Useless,” he muttered as the word flashed in his mind. Then everything blanked out., again it seems you have not read the article, I am quoting from a book entitled "Demokrasya at Kudeta" that is not mine, but the words / excerpts from the book. Hence, there is quotation marks there. The reference is cited there. Read it first before concluding, because those are excerpts / quotations from the book "Demokrasya at Kudeta" published with ISBN by Col. Gaudencio San Juan. Thank you  03:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, so the one I cited is sourced... However, most of your edit is a copyright violation. Here is a copyvio report of your edit (revision id 722780935, which is not the current revision of this article). Now, how can you explain that? Pokéfan95 (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire block quote appears to be cited from the book. Whether this is OK to use might require clarication at WP:CP because using such a large extract of copyright text (even if a source is cited in support) might be seen as a problem per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Another problem is whether it is even necessary to include such a long excerpt from the book per WP:UNDUE. The sentence "In the book entitled Demokrasya at Kudeta, by Col. Gaudencio "Ding" L. San Juan, the defense of the GHQ Building was cited and particularly, Santos' account was mentioned" is more that sufficient per WP:QUOTE. The reader can read the quoted text imply by clicking on the url for the source, so there's really no need to include it in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources and Wikipedia notability
I've been Googling for possible reliable sources which could possibly be used to support what is written in this article, but I am not having much luck. I did find this which would likely be a reliable source, but I do not have access to Highbeam so I cannot see if it mentions Santos. I also found this, and there is some discussion of Camp Aguinaldo and the August 1987 Coup attempt in that report. Quite a few other names were mentioned, including some named Santos, but I cannot find any mention of any Vicente Santos. Since the article claims that Santos died in 2012 and received full military honours in a funeral attended by a former president of the Philippines, it's not unreasonable to expect that his funeral received some kind of press coverage in major newspapers in the Philippines; I can't, however, find anything at all even for this. Most of the sources are for books that Santos has written, but none of that seems to stand-out per WP:SIGCOV and his primary claim to Wikipedia notability does not seem to be as that of an author. The more I look for sources, the harder it's getting to see how he satisfies WP:BASIC. The overall tone of the article and the addition of personal photos, etc. due to COI editing is giving the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that this is intended to be more of a memorial than a Wikipedia article. Moreover, the fact that the primary editor whose been adding such content says that they are the son of Santos and his apparent feeling that this is somehow an "authorized biography" of Santos might indicate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. Without better sourcing, I'm not too confident that this would survive an AfD unless there is some Wikiproject notability guideline particular to these types of biographies which is being met. Non-English and offline sources are acceptable and can be used to establish notability per WP:PUBLISHED and WP:NOENG, but it needs to be shown that such sources exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Be reminded that not everything can be sourced from the internet, check books and publications in the library and or local records, the work of Santos is also in the Library of Congress and National Library of the Philippines.  23:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)
 * As I stated above, Wikipedia does not require sources to be online, it only requires them to be published and capable of being accessed by someone somewhere. Online sources just make verification easier since they can be accessed by essentially anyone with an Internet connection. So, if you are aware of such a source (even a non-English source) then please list it here so that it can be evaluated by other editors. Please try to provide as much information about the source per WP:CITEHOW so that its independence and reliability can be accessed. Please also understand that only independent reliable sources can be used to establish notability, so anything written by your father or anyone connected to him (in other words a primary source) is not helpful for showing Wikipedia notability. Also, be aware that significant coverage is required. What Wikipedia notability requires is stuff written by others who have no connection to your father, not stuff written about him by himself, his family, his colleagues, etc. Stuff in major newspapers or magazines is usually considered to independent of the subject as long as the source has a reputation for proper editorial oversight; stuff on personal websites, blogs or other user-generated content is not typically considered reliable. The more independent and reliable sources we are able to find, the better chance this article will have of surviving AfD if someday someone nominates it for deletion. For what its worth, telling others to go and check for sources for you is not going to get you very far because it is the responsibility of the editor adding content to an article to provide a reliable source for verification when asked.
 * Finally, as I also stated above, there is something wrong with your signature. This is why a bot called User:SignBot is going around and adding your signature and a time stamp to each post you make. (See WP:UNSIGNED for reference). Wikipedia allows signatures to be customized, but they need to be formatted a certain way per WP:CUSTOMSIG so that they are recognized by Wikipedia's software. You should try and fix this as soon as possible because before an administrator takes action per WP:SIG. If you're not sure what's wrong, then try asking for help at WP:VPT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please take note of the provisions of the wiki policy Notability (people) and WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide


 * Shortcut:
 * WP:ANYBIO


 * #1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.


 * #2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.


 * Col. Santos have received well-known awards in the Military and has numerous books and publications that is part of the historical record and references of the Armed Forces of the Philppines such as:


 * 'The Veteran is Worth Caring For[8] (2010) (Revised 2011)
 * Almanac ng ROTC-NSTP Vol.2[9](2008)
 * Almanac ng ROTC-NSTP Vol.1[10] (2007)
 * Filipino para sa Sundalo[11](2005)
 * History of GHQ & HSC, AFP and Camp Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo (Kasaysayan ng Kampo Aguinaldo) (1989)
 * Diksyunaryo ng Kawal at Pulis (1985)
 * Filipino para sa Kawal, Pulis at Kadete[12] (1984)
 * Diksyunaryo ng Kadete[13] (1981)
 * Soldier's Dictionary (1978)


 * These books have ISBNs and is in the Library of Congress, National Library of the Philippines among others, with cited references in the article. So Notability issue here is irrelevant. The fact that he is the author of numerous books being used by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and is even in the Library of Congress and other National Libraries, establishes his being notable per the provisions of WP:ANYBIO. Please do not be subjective and partial, we, us editors of wikipedia must also become contributors, to build up information in a wiki article and not always in the mood of "deletor", frequently removing information for the convenience of not contributing or adding up additional information about the article.  03:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabyan17 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is what is called an essay on Wikipedia. It may provide helpful information, but it's not the same as a policy or guideline. It also represents the thoughts of particular WikiProject and not necessarily the community as a whole per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Having said that, even an essay such as this can help clarify things when they are unclear which is the main reason why I asked members of WP:MILHIST for their opinions on this article in the first place. Perhaps or  can provide some more insight on how Wikipedia notability is typically provided in these type of military-related biographies?
 * WP:ANYBIO is a sub-section of WP:BIO, but please note that the first sentence of that section reads "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" and it's the last part of that sentence which also needs to be considered. I am not saying that Santos (your father) is not Wikipedia notable; I am only saying that it's a bit hard, in my opinion, to show that he has received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required by WP:BASIC based upon the sources currently cited. Notability would be much clearer, again just in my opinion, if it could be shown that your father has received significant coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources instead of simply citing the number of books he has written. It is also a bit surprising, again in my opinion, that someone who has had such a career like your father has not been written about more by independent reliable sources. I've been trying to find sources for what is written in the article, but simply have not been able to do so. For example, how does someone reading article verify that President Ramos attended your father's wake, that your father was buried with full military honors and that he is buried in the "Heroes Cemetery"? There is no source cited in support of any of that that information. I believe it's true, but even the stuff that we as editors personally believe or know to be true still is subject to WP:V. Did your father's funeral, etc. receive any coverage from any major newspaper or magazine? Is there anything which can be cited to support what is written in the "Early life" section? How do we verify where your dad was born, what his mother did for a living, where he went to school and what he got his degree in, etc? How do we know that "Santos Hall" was named after your father? This are no sources supporting any of that information as well. There's a lot of unsourced content in the article, which can sometimes (not always) lead other editors to be a little more skeptical of the Wikipedia notability of the subject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Publications
I think this section could use a bit of cleaning up of puffery, such as "prolific writer" and "influential in the use", as well as the unsourced content at the beginning/ end of the section per WP:PEA and WP:UNSOURCED. The section may need to be trimmed quite a bit to bring it more in line with WP:NPOV and WP:V.

There's also probably no need for citations give for some of the publications listed per WP:BOMBARD and WP:CITEKILL. Books, etc. can be more then sufficiently identified by their isbn numbers so no need really for a citation. One way this could be done is using Template:Cite book like this  which would look like  in the article. The template displays the isbn numbers as links which take the reader to a page where they can find the book online. The urls currently used in the article could be added to the url parameter in the template if they are deemed necessary. The language and trans-title parameters could also be used for anything not written English.

Some of the publications listed, however, do not seem to have isbn numbers or have possibly incorrect isbn numbers. For example, The source for Filipino para sa Sundalo lists the isbn number as 978-971-691-466-5, but an isbn search of that number comes up empty. The urls provided for Diksyunaryo ng Kadete and Filipino para sa Kawal, Pulis at Kadete give very little information about the books. Some kind of consensus should be reached as to whether anything without a verifiable isbn number should be mentioned in the article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:LSC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)