Talk:The Joseph Estrada Verdict

I created this SEPARATE article since it must be here for benefit of Filipino researchers and the world, for this is the first time in our Filipino history that a president was convincted and jailed for life. This Verdict news is scattered all over the world today and is TOP news in most papers.

--Florentino floro 07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a need for a separate article since the content of this article is just a copy of Trial of Joseph Estrada.--bluemask ^(talk) 08:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I explained above, that I created this separate article, for reasons: a) Reuters said that this is the first time that a Philippine President had been convicted since 1935; b) like many Wikipedia Major articles, sub-articles are created and I had edited and encountered many such sub articles; with more reason that this article should be a separate one, since PLUNDER TRIAL is just a trial like any other trial here, but VERDICT (we call it in legal terminology decision or judgment) IN LAW, is distinct. But, since I am a new Wikipedian, I have no objection to its merging, just that future researchers would benefit more and would have better options, if they find this in google search, for practical reasons. In the end, it is more beneficial for purposes of legal and study research. Thanks.

--Florentino floro 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting merge. Redundant with the article to be merged to. Shrumster 11:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge too. We don't have The Saddam Hussein Verdict. Nor should Wikipedia have this one. --Howard the Duck 13:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supprt merge. In most articles about trial, the verdict is part of the trial's article, not a separate article in itself. --- Tito Pao 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question now is how to merge the two articles. This article has important info not found on the other article. I suggest not to hastily redirect this. --Howard the Duck 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one, we can do away with the quotes or paraphrase them (instead of quoting them in full) under the "Reactions" section. Actually, more than half of the information on this article were made up of quotes from key people. Some of the information, IMO, are needless; for instance what does the US battleships' visit have to do with the verdict on Erap? And why the passage about him wearing a barong? --- Tito Pao 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]