Talk:Mocha Uson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Website

http://www.mocha.com.ph/ has not been accessible since Tuesday, June 2, 2015. Is there a new website? Is it really Mocha posing as a guy named Joseph on https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100010211022592?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

MMFF ambassador

There should be a sentence or two about Mocha Uson's appointment as Metro Manila Film Festival ambassador in 2016. Jollibinay (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

So be bold and add them. You might as well expand the lead; as it stands, it's dissapointingly short and does not really prepare readers to the article. Slightlymad 09:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mocha Uson Birthdate/Age

According to the UST Publication, The Varsitarian, Mocha Uson graduated from MedTech in UST in 1998: http://varsitarian.net/features/20170329/mocha-uson-anatomy-of-a-cause-celebre If MedTech is a 4-year course, then that means Uson entered college in 1994. If she was born in 1982, that means she was 12 or 13 when she entered college, which I doubt. Can someone find a reliable source stating that her birthdate is May 17, 1982? -Object404 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Found citation for May 17, 1982: https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/the-philippine-star/20161106/281526520619224 . She must be a prodigy if she really entered college at 12/13. -Object404 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, this gets more curious. According to this article published on ABS-CBN in 2011, she was 24 years old in 2011. http://news.abs-cbn.com/lifestyle/02/08/11/mocha-uson-close-and-personal That places her year of birth at 1987 and that she's only 30 years old today. That means she entered medical school at 12 years old. Okay, Uson is definitely a prodigy. -Object404 (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears that material from the Philstar/Pressreader article by Ricky Lo was lifted from this very Wikipedia article. Therefore it is a circular reference. As such, am removing all references to Uson's date of birth until a more reliable source has been found. -Object404 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal life section

See this [1] change. I think the earlier version (mine) is better. Opinions, editors?

Also, how about just saying "is catholic"? A source: [2]. I can't find chapter and verse on this, but I think WP mostly goes with what the subject says on this issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Also also, is ABS-CBN (TV network) generally good enough for a BLP, or should we be more careful on using it as a source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No. It's a fact-check on Mocha's claims. You can simply go to the Christian and Catholic sections on the relevant Wikipedia article which is linked in the text. You can find all the citations you need on masturbation being a sin there, so there is no original research being done. Uson is advocating what is considered under Catholic belief a sin, ergo she is advocating acts which are against Catholic belief, therefore it's better to use "claims" as the proper term here. -Object404 (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

To that first point, yeah, I would stick to your version that simply mentions her being a Catholic. That diff you link constitutes synthesis because it combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion. (i.e. Since she's a Catholic who advocates masturbation, then she must be a sinful Catholic who finds herself at odds with the Catholic church's teaching.) We only summarize what is stated by reliable sources, that's it.

To that second point, ABS-CBN's news division, ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs, is highly reliable for BLPs as well as other topics as it has professional editorial control. Patience, Slightlymad 10:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ABS-CBN is a reliable source. However the link talks about how Uson challenged the Catholic Church to excommunicate her. Just because one has not been excommunicated, does not mean that one is Catholic. The issue here started because the old text on the section (older diffs) stated "practicing Catholic", when her acts are against Catholic teachings. Furthermore, the Philippine Catholic Church specifically released a missive imploring constituents to stop sharing fake news, a directive which Uson has repeatedly and notoriously gone against. As such, Uson needs to be called out on her claims, and for the article section to be more factual. -Object404 (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The point was that the source stated "is catholic", as does she, apparently. That is the reasonable thing to go by on WP. If there are sources that have other opinions on her degree of catholisism, they can be used too (in WP:PROPORTION), but the current writing is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, WP doesn't "fact-check" peoples belief in this manner. "Calling her out" on this (or anything, really) is not what WP is for.

Per the sources currently used, to mention the masturbation-thing still seem out of WP:PROPORTION to me. ABS-CBN just mention it in passing. That something can be cited doesn't necessarily mean it should be in the article.

Cruxnow seems interesting, but use it in the fake-news sections higher up, it's not good writing to repeat this in "Personal life" again, that's redundant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Object404, I assume removing my comment here [3] was an accident? But thanks for correcting the headline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was an accident. Sorry about that. The thing is, claims in the personal life section must be factual and if her lifestyle and actions are clearly not Catholic, then she is not a Catholic. I assume you are not very familiar with Mocha Uson, that is why you are saying that her views on masturbation are not well known, nor notable? Please check one of the other cited links (not your ABS-CBN link on Excommunication) in the current version as it pertains directly to it. I do not wish to overly use citation links in the section that's why I did not add more, but her open advocacy for masturbation is one of the things she is well known for, and is notable in her personal life. Note that I am not trying to slut-shame here. I only wish to keep the article accurate and truthful. -Object404 (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As for the Cruxnow source, it's not really redundant as it's to fact-check her claims on her stated religion. -Object404 (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"if her lifestyle and actions are clearly not Catholic, then she is not a Catholic." Now you are way off WP-philosophy. For WP-purposes, she is a Catholic if she says so. If there are other comments on this in reliable sources, they can be mentioned, but WP generally regards religion up to the individual. I learned she existed today, so this article and the sources in it is what I got. The current masturbation-cites ([5][95]) is IMO, like I said, not enough to deserve mention. There may be better sources, but if so, consider that "Personal life" may not be the best section for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"...famous for her risqué moves, for blogging about sex advice and masturbation..." - It's explicitly stated in Reuters. Therefore, it is notable enough to put in her personal life section. I don't want to citation-bomb the section so the 2 citations are enough. Besides, the section does not even state that she is not Catholic, it is only stating facts pertinent to her claims. -Object404 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The section is tiny, and Reuters mentions it in passing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Look. I don't mean to sound annoyed, but I'm really tired. Researching and contributing to Wikipedia can be tedious, exhausting, thankless work. You're not even passingly familiar the subject and admitted that you only learned of her existence today, and yet you're deleting content that is properly cited and common knowledge where the subject is from. Please do more thorough research on the subject before you go proceed with your modifications. Start with this tweet from her and work your way up. https://twitter.com/mochauson/status/341570113390129153?lang=en Come back once you've done your due diligence and have read at least 20 more articles on her before you start engaging in deletionism again. It will be much appreciated. -Object404 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"common knowledge where the subject is from" Is not good enough for an en-WP WP:BLP, and what I deleted [4], was cited, but IMO not good enough to be in the article. However, there is no deadline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

"not good enough for an en-WP WP:BLP" -> Agree with this. But what are you looking for, an entire article about Uson's obsession with masturbation? I think that's being completely unreasonable. But please come back when you've read at least 20 articles on the subject. All the best, -Object404 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

That would be good, yes, especially if it is an "obsession" (actually, more than one would be even better). To make a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists comparison: Kate Upton has a sentence about her dog, based on an article about her and her dog. And again, if this can be sourced, "Personal life" doesn't seem the obvious place. Blogging or activism perhaps, it seems more "public" than private. We'll see if other editors can help form a consensus, we apparently disagree to disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for my term. Obsession is not the proper way to describe it. "Advocacy" is the correct term, which can be easily gleaned from Uson's article Masturbation Month, where she describes the benefits of masturbation. If you read the article, it is made clear that Uson is a masturbation advocate. As such, the section body text "advocate of masturbation" is an accurate representation of Uson. Again, the phrase belongs in the section because it serves as a counter-point to Uson's claim that she is Catholic, which is the subject here. The same with the article on Catholic Bishops denouncing fake news and disinformation, which does not belong in the Fake News section since it also serves as a counter-point to Mocha's claim of being Catholic. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least we are both getting annoyed. 1: This is a blog (like the other blog in that section) and has no use in a BLP. It only shows she blogs about masturbation, but you showed that with the Reuters source already. What's needed to make this worth mentioning in this article is what you said above, an RS unconnected with her that bothers to write about it, not just mention it. One, if it's a good one, could be enough. 2. Heck no. Unless you have an RS that says "Uson is not a Catholic because..." please drop that line of reasoning, it's very un-WP and un-BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that's [5] a little more interesting and on-topic. Can you agree to "Uson is openly bisexual.[17][95] She calls herself "an open-minded Catholic",[15] and has suggested that the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines is the antichrist.[98]"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

She calls herself "an open-minded Catholic",[15] but has suggested that the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines is the antichrist.[98]" -Object404 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Apparently she is a very open-minded Catholic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

:) Object404 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Gaffes

The list of Mocha's gaffes are incomplete. Also the existing ones aren't listed chronologically. Nivla (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Alvindclopez

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

please delete Mocha's wiki page thanks Helianthus8 (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:AFD. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Add a birthdate?

Google lists her birthday as May 17, 1982. Should we add it? Immediately seems odd that the article doesn't include the information. Fortunatestars (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Because WP:BLP, we should have a better source than Google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Which of the following sources are most reliable? The second one is a post which was shared by Mocha herself on her FB Page, MOCHA USON BLOG. Hiddenstranger (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

[6]—[7]—[8]—[9]

How is Google considered unreliable? Oh well, it doesn't matter. I'll try to look for a better source when I can, there's gotta be one somewhere. Fortunatestars (talk) 09:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

FB and blogs might not normally be considered reliable sources, but coming from her, I'd say that is pretty reliable. Fortunatestars (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Manila Times seems ok to me, I'm unaware of any dispute on this (her birthdate). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

If by Google you mean the Knowledge Graph, it's basically because we have no idea where Google got the info (but often it's WP, which doesn't work because WP:REFLOOP), it may or may not have been a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, and with BLP:s we are supposed to be very strict about the sources we use. A general Google-search can give useful stuff and lots of crap. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fortunatestars:@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: So shall we go for The Manila Times source? ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hiddenstranger, go for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yea, I'm going to add it. The sources presented for her birthdate are reliable enough. Fortunatestars (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The year 1982 as her date of birth is definitely inaccurate. See above section about her date of birth. The other sources on her date of birth appear to have copied from her Wikipedia article. Removing birthdate until resolved. -Object404 (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fortunatestars, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Object404: The Varsitarian article mentioned in the above section may not be accurate either. It could just be a mistake, or wrong unverified info. Read the 3 comments at the bottom of that article, all doubtful. But if it is true, then Mocha may have been born before '82, but I doubt she would have been born any later than '82, which that ABS-CBN article claims, saying she's 24 which is highly doubtful; no one knows where they got that age from. This post from Community Newswatch PH - [10] - was shared by Mocha herself on her FB Page, and she even thanked them in the caption. It's extremely likely Mocha would have read that post before sharing it, and it mentions her date of birth - if it was incorrect, or if any info in that post was incorrect, I don't think Mocha would share it. If it's coming from Mocha herself, you can't get any more reliable than that. Any thoughts? Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Varsitarian article is accurate. By chance, I was able to personally chat with someone who went to the same school as Mocha in Pangasinan, Philippines (Mother Goose Special Schools System) and according to the person Mocha is not as young as that claim (1982). Mocha does have a very lengthy history of sharing misinformation. Maybe she does not correct the year of her date of birth in reports since it is flattering? -Object404 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

According to Philippine Star, Uson earned a degree in MedTech from UST in 1998 -Object404 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)