Talk:Manny Pacquiao/Archives/2012

Personal Life

In light of his mother's quoted comments today I have changed 'is a devout Catholic' to 'was a devout Catholic. Although I have no objection to this word being reversed, his mother's comment on GMA should remain below it until such time as Manny himself makes a declaration one way or the other Boopolo (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Pound for pound status no more.

Pacquiao is no longer the best pound for pound fighter after his last match with Marquez, Floyd Mayweather Jr has replaced him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.80.12 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So Mayweather replaced him by not fighting anyone at all >.>

This isn't for debating who the pound for pound best fighter in the world is. Go on a fourm and do that.

But, for the sake of it, you should really consider how sciptical you bandwagon fans are being. Just one controversial win and all the records Manny has set, all the champions he has beaten and all the praise he had earned mean nothing now. Shameful. Fans can be so terrible. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Pacquaio is no longer number 1 rated by the ring magazine and boxrec, the ring magazine has pacquiao as number 2 and boxrec has pacquiao number 2, please edit the page immediately as false information is being feed to people...

First Pacquiao fight with Barrera

I want to point out a mistake in the section about the first fight with Barrera. This was not the first KO suffered by Barrera. He was KO'd by Junior Jones many years before in the 5th rd. So this was the second time Marco Antonio Barrera had been stopped in a fight. Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.197.163 (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Manny's comments regarding homosexuals

Edit request:

Manny's comments regarding homosexuals needs to be in this article, he was commenting on Obama's position on gay marriage

In an interview with the Examiner.com, Pacquiao, now a legislator in the Philippines, said, “God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other.”

Calling gay marriage an “abomination,” Pacquiao referenced the Bible, saying “It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of old.”

The Examiner paraphrases Pacquiao: “Pacquiao’s directive for Obama calls societies to fear God and not to promote sin, inclusive of same-sex marriage and cohabitation, notwithstanding what Leviticus 20:13 has been pointing all along: ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.’ … America should be the model of morality for other countries to emulate and must have the responsibility to uphold the Scripture to the highest order of God’s command, he adds.”

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=70&threadid=6683946 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreBishopGOAT (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

NOT DONE - First, your source has been shown to be unreliable.

• http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/05/manny_pacquiao_misquote_timeline.php
• http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pacquiao-interviewer-boxer-didnt-say-gays-must-be-put-to-death-i-wrote-that/media/2012/05/16/39667

Second, you must have a reasonable rationale to override WP:BLP concerns for such material to be included, and additionally, if it is included, it must be included in a way that complies with the WP:NPOV policy. Don't buy into the mainstream media hype without adaquate galoshes. You'll end up stepping in a lot of crap. -- Avanu (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Pound for pound status no longer applies

Please edit the intro lead as Manny's pound for pound status is no longer number 1.

http://boxing.about.com/cs/rankingschampions/a/top_fifty.htm http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1176881-pacquiao-lost-pound-for-pound-king-title-shares-no-2-spot-with-mayweather

And also make changes to pound for pound ranking as Manny Pacquiao is number 2 on The Ring magazine's rating and Boxrec number 2 also..--Abdul1985 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 May 2012

Manny Pacquiao has recently made comments attacking President Obama's stance on gay marriage. He quotes the bible in his comments, claiming ""God's words first ... obey God's law first before considering the laws of man," Pacquiao said in response to how he felt about Obama's public support of same-sex marriage. "God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married, only if they so are in love with each other. It should not be of the same sex so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old."" Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31751_162-57434793-10391697/manny-pacquiao-jabs-barack-obama-on-same-sex-marriage-stance/

Manny Pacquiao also was heavily opposed to legislation requiring sex education and providing family planning methods for Filipinos called Reproductive Health (RH) bill. Versions of this bill have been brought up over the last 16 years and have consistently been voted down. His wife, after 4 children, admitted to using birth control pills, but eventually reversed her stance. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20066550-503543.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Please change the political section to reflect this new information.

216.26.116.18 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

NOT DONE - See previous request for same thing above. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know sources such as CBS and politico were unreliable, please explain how this is not relevant to his political career? Your earlier post says it would need to comply with NPOV, that's easy, just state the facts then about what he's said considering its generated significant media coverage to warrant its inclusion.AndreBishopGOAT (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh* Have to give my "what is a source" speech again... CBS and Politico are not SOURCES (see WP:RS), they are publishers. It has been shown via sources that many of these stories haven't been entirely honest about what Pacquiao actually said. It is probably best to at least wait if not entirely exclude this material from the article until reliable sources can be checked and rechecked. -- Avanu (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012

Please change the intro lead as most sources have noted Pacquiao is listed at #2 now.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1176881-pacquiao-lost-pound-for-pound-king-title-shares-no-2-spot-with-mayweather

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ring_Magazine_pound_for_pound

http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/7854299/ranking-top-pound-pound-boxers-nos-1-3

 Done. I dug up and cited some other sources and added a bit of info from those sources. Please review my edit in case I screwed it up. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Anti gay stance

Something should be added about his recent anti gay remarks and the controversy surrounding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.138.207 (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Please give a rationale, and please read the rest of the talk page, this has been requested already. -- Avanu (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2012

Considering Manny has actually spoken and apologized for his comments, this should be included now? It at least deserves a mention now, considering he has acknowledged part of the comments.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/manny-pacquiao-to-the-gay-community-i-apologize.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefthooksmash (talk • contribs) 21:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? -- Avanu (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's rather obvious why. The "why" that should be asked here is why you seem to think you own this article and decide what goes in it and what doesn't. This talk page is littered with you doing nothing but saying "no, no, no, no, no, no, no...................". It's obviously relevant information, isn't BLP vio and can be accurately written without POV. Why don't you do something constructive and do it yourself instead of hawking over the article as if you own it. 108.81.116.63 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a very simple question. Please answer it. I'll give you a couple more to mull over. Should this be added to the The Grove at Farmers Market article as well? They did, after all, decide to ban him from their property over this. I'll give you a hint as to what the answer ought to be....(no).... but I'll let you figure it out. Perhaps we need to make sure to include Pacquiao's stance on abortion or what kind of gum he likes or maybe his favorite shoe? Part of the problem is editors who feel that every trivial thing a person says ought to make it into every article. I don't "own" any article, but I do feel that people need to step up to a reasonable standard. -- Avanu (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, nothing but you telling everyone else what should and shouldn't be in this article. Hawkish much? 108.81.116.63 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't think editors have a duty to help each other edit? Each person should sit isolated without any assistance or guidance? The best lesson I got on this sort of issue was from another insistent editor on the Taco Bell article. Taco Bell was sued recently over whether their beef contained enough beef. And I thought, 'Hey, let's add this to the article!', and so I added it. This other editor removed it. We went around and around, and in the end I had to admit his points about the lasting impact and relevance of the new content were good points. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." If you want hawkish, I could run down every place that Editor:Pass a Method (contribs)added this Obama gay thing on various people's biographies and start making strong cases against them being added, but I haven't done that. So, could you maybe make a case here instead of calling me "hawkish", or telling me I somehow 'own' the article? -- Avanu (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

============= Change in status =====================

Manny pacquiao is no longer rated "number 1" in the world, stating number 2 is inadequate.--Abdul1985 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not well written.

The infomation regarding the Bradley fight is written very poorly. I don't know who moderates the page as it's locked, but someone needs to clean it up.92.7.95.185 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User GreatLifeInService

Can User GreatLifeInService stop adding the false information regarding Pacquiao, he has 3 times now reverted the edit and keeps adding the same false detail that Manny has endorsed Mitt Romney.

This is the version of his edit;

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Manny_Pacquiao&oldid=497732954

He was long rated as the best pound for pound boxer in the world by some sporting news and boxing websites, including BoxRec.com, Sporting Life and The Ring.[8][9] However, in April 2012, Pacquiao dropped to number two in the rankings, behind Floyd Mayweather, Jr..[10] However on May 7, 2012, Ring Magazine declared the top position vacant and jointly ranked Pacquiao and Mayweather in the number two spot.[11]

Can we update this? First of Manny was was long rated as best pound for pound by MOST, not SOME (eg Sports Illustrated, Yahoo Sports, Ring Magazine, Espn, Boxrec etc) sporting news and boxing websites up until after the third Marquez fight. In Citation number [10] Dispite what this one article says, there was no evidence of mayweather ever being promoted to #1 in ring magazine in April 2012. Also please state he is currently ranked #2 on ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Yahoo Sports, Ring Magazine and only Ring magazine has Floyd tied with him at #2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azntakeaway (talk • contribs) 05:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember when that rumor about him being dropped to 2 and Mayweather being number 1 on Ring came out. It was never anything more than a rumor. The article itself says that "according to reports" the ratings had been changed. It then posted the supposed list. However, at no point did either the Ring website or the actual magazine have the list posted in that article. Nor was the supposed change made. Despite the title of the citation, Pacquiao was not dropped to #2 behind Mayweather. It wasn't until Mayweather's fight with Cotto that Pacquiao was moved to tie #2 with Mayweather. 66.65.74.244 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 December 2012

There is a line saying that Erik Morales's knockout losses to Manny Pacquiao are the only in his career, but he was knocked out again this year by Danny Garcia. Ctying (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Don King's hair (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No more interest in pacquiao's fight

what happened to his last fight where he supposedly won due to what the people actually see but the judges still favored the other boxer is an example of a corruption in sports... therefore I don't believe in this game anymore.. . shelve all your monies as well as change channels... if the previous fight is in favor for pacquiao or the other boxer- who cares!!! LIES! LIES! LIES!68.68.102.76 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

For Pacmans latest lost against Marquez, shouldn't it be KO, not TKO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3268:6560:5D42:C4A9:EC41:DBB5 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction on information about his amateur boxing career

I believed manny did not went for amateur fights contrary to what mentioned here that he had recorded 64 fights in just span of 2 yrs, from 14-16 yrs old. Kindly update that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.31.57 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)