Jump to content

Talk:Miriam Defensor Santiago/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Unclear sentences

There are two sentences in the article that don't make clear sense. Since I don't know what they mean, I was unable to rewrite them. These are the sentences (with the unclear parts that need to be replaced in boldface):

Mrs. Aquino endorsed Fidel Ramos; however she was consistently gaining public support for her candidacy for president.

On January 13, 2001, she was one of the senators who voted against the opening of the second bank envolope that led to the second EDSA People Power Revolution which removed Joseph Estrada as president.

Can someone please make these changes?

Rbraunwa 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements (laughable)

The article makes pretty grand claims that Miriam's popularity and fans never wavered, considered by most Filipinos as the most intelligent Filipina, well-respected politician. These aren't really sourced from independent surveys and such. Though I don't doubt her intelligence. I know someone who's seen her practice as a judge. And he said she was very ethical and skilled as a judge. But he can't understand why she's the way she is now.

Answer: I can't help but answer this comment. Just like you have a right to say this, let me also share my thoughts because we equally share the same rights. Undoubtedly, Sen. Santiago is very intelligent (just attend the Senate sessions, Mondays thru Wednesdays, 3pm onwards in Roxas Blvd., and people will see for themselves how intelligent and admirable she is during her speeches and interpellations). My colleagues, friends and even just observing how people react to her, the article written about her admirable qualities are not so hard to believe. She have citations and recognitions from numerous respected organizations (check out her impressive resume'). Do we need to photograph the actual awards/ certificates? Aren't these enough evidence, Australian Magazine as the "100 Most Powerful Women in the World", Magsaysay Award, and many others? The 1992 SWS survey also showed she was consistently topping the charts during the presidential elections. For her critics, I made my point. If others still don't believe that people admire her, just ask people around. Her critics are so vocal in the media as well as people who are reading this site. I can't help but laugh because her critics always have a lot to say about her but all of them are afraid to debate her in public. Based on my observation, people either admire her so much or people just hate her. They admire her, for obvious reasons. She came from an ordinary family, she strived hard and worked to become what she is now. An example for young people who want to achieve something, and is working hard to achieve it. She studied hard (consistent honor student)while at the same time taking care of her siblings when she was young. People can hate her. They can say all the bad things they like. But people like me, teachers and students where my siblings study, colleagues in past and current offices, can also continue admiring her. One thing is evident here in this thread, if she's not popular ... people will not visit this site... will not edit contents in this article or will not even care to read her article. I'm looking at the history of this page, and I got surprised that almost everyday, people either post their comments, edit contents or just give feedback (both positive and negative). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.159.4 (talk • contribs) 06:09, November 17, 2006 (UTC)
Power and authority is something difficult to measure and changes quickly. Since such things depend on people following you. Magazine rankings like that aren't very unrealiable given that their methods have no real academic backing. It's just a survey like People's 50 most beautiful people in the world, useless; except for people who believe in em. Every Magazine could have their own survey and they wouldn't all agree unless someone's authority is really blatant. 100 most wealthy people in world is certainly more realiable as it looks at the amount of objective money one has.
Why don't you source that SWS survey that showed her popularity during the 1992 elections? I would've probably voted for her before but she's changed for me; or, worse, never really changed Responsiblebum 08:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While I think she was probably cheated in the elections; its pretty bold if not reckless to say so outright without giving sources or evidence. Especially that bit about her not being able to afford election watchers costing her the elections. There must be a better NPOV way of saying this. Saying there are suspiciouns and irregularities and such.

Answer: It is not so difficult to believe that she was indeed cheated. Ask people around you and they will say that she is the real president in 1992. She was leading the first 5 days of the presidential election tabulation then suddenly after a series of blackout hit the country, the tide turned against her. She submitted evidence of cheating, ballot boxes were turned over to the Electoral Tribunal. Unfortunately, it was dismissed not on ground of lack of evidence but on mere technicality that she already won as senator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.159.4 (talk • contribs) 06:09, November 17, 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm very open to that idea myself but why don't you cite your sources? Or one could just say that she lodged a complaint with evidence but was dismissed on said technicality. That the elections were suspected of being fraudulent. Saying there was cheating without the evidence being formally examined is kinda reckless don't you think? You could even describe said evidence here. Responsiblebum 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I initially cringed at the (let's say BOLD) statements here but I ended up laughing in the end. This is really just... WOW, I mean laughable to me really. Responsiblebum 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, you laughed. But people like me and the rest of the public, in the end, were amazed. Those achievements speak for themselves. She is INDEED AN EXAMPLE to the youth. Despite the criticisms, she is still fighting for what she believes is right. She can't please the rest of the nation but to ordinary people, she is an inspiration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.159.4 (talk • contribs) 06:09, November 17, 2006 (UTC)
Reactionː You misunderstand, I find the article's lack of professionalism and objectivity laughable. And not necessarily Miriam Santiago. Responsiblebum 08:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATEː The article has gotten better (more objective) since I wrote the above RXN. But there still a lot of unsourced and subjective opinions. Well time for me to shut up and do something. Responsiblebum 04:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

How to refer to the Miriam Defensor Santiago in the article

According to MoS:BIO, subsequent references to the subject after the opening paragraph should use the subject's surname. It is inappropriate, as is frequently done in this article, to refer to her simply as "Miriam", even if that name is commonly used in other contexts. It's not clear to me whether she typically goes by Defensor, Santiago, Defensor Santiago, or Defensor-Santiago, but whichever it is, it should be consistent throughout the article. It would also be appropriate to refer to her by a political title in a context related to that position. For example: "On November 24th 2006, Senator Defensor Santiago proposed Measure Blah Blah before the Senate. The Senator claims that the measure will improve conditions for working-class Blah Blahs throughout the Philippines." -Anþony (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I concur!

Reverted to previous version

I noticed like many of you that much of the fluff seems to have been added by Factotum73 (talk · contribs). Since this is Wikipedia and not Miriam's press office, I decided to be bold and revert to an older version. We can add appropriate details to this one instead, but a full listing of her achievements seems best left to her online CVs etc. --Edward Sandstig 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The reverted version still needs editing, and some statements need to be checked for its factuality. --Factotum73 05:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeps, which we can work on little by little. If you see a sentence you feel is unsourced, feel free to add the {{citation_needed}} template. By the way, you can sign your comments by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~. That will automatically add your name and the time in UTC that you made your post. --Edward Sandstig 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias / Not Balanced Article

I saw this on WP:RM, and after looking over the article, I can see that it needs help. As it stands, this is not an encyclopedia article. It's heavily POV, and appears to be a resume. I removed the "note" - it is in violation of WP:OWN, as the senator does not own this article and cannot prevent people from making changes to it. I added {{POV}} and {{inappropriate tone}}. --Coredesat 05:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Factotum73 (talk · contribs) is in direct contact with the senator and editing this page according to her wishes. That's a sort of second-hand violation of WP:AUTO, probably a conflict of interest at least. Santiago's blog includes a prominent link to this page. This page needs some serious attention. -Anþony (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I never heard of her before today. IMHO the article surely lacks encyclopedic tone. Too much cheerleading for the nice lady. I agree with Core (who, also, I never heard of before today) that it appears to be a resume, and an overly self-congratulatory one at that. Lou Sander 13:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose returning the page to the version dated 14th November, and fix things from there. Comments? --Edward Sandstig 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
For clarification, I wrote the article with reference to her existing biographical write-ups, magazine articles and correspondence with the senator. I must confess that I'm a Wiki-noob (for example, I have foregone writing at the talk page) but I am learning, thanks to the administrators. But I just feel that the article does not do justice to her person. Will be adding details more smartly this time. And thanks a lot.Factotum73 (talk)
I left a message on your talk page, to which you have yet to respond. I must ask you again to confirm whether or not you are in contact with the senator and if she has directed you to make changes to this page. This is an important issue. It is imperative that we maintain a neutral point of view in this and every article, which is complicated if the editors involved have a conflict of interest.
Even if you are in contact or have been, it would not necessarily disqualify you from editing this article. If you are open about your connections to the subject and clear about your intentions here, I believe your contributions have been made in good faith and so I see no reason not to continue with them. -Anþony (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, I missed the entire "correspondence with the senator" part of what you said. Simple factual inquiries that have no POV bearing are probably OK. (What is her DOB, where did she go to school, etc.) However, if she provides you with specific wording to use or asks you to change the article in a specific way, you should probably bring those changes here to the talk page first. Also, it is Wikipedia's policy that all statements must be independently verifiable. Details you receive from Mrs. Santiago should be corroborated by an independent and reliable source. -Anþony (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some topics to add in criticism

Whatever happened to that statement she'd jump off a plane if ERAP was deposed? When he was deposed, she simply said I LIED. She can be certainly critiqued for shooting her mouth off. Other inicidences could abound. Responsiblebum 06:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)---

Answer: That quote went to show that she has sense of humor. When we heard that, we said, she was not so serious after all. Humor and wit are so rare now a days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.159.4 (talk • contribs) 06:09, November 17, 2006 (UTC)
Reactionː Well that's a pretty weak argument. Given the gravity of the circumstances. I won't argue with you though. I'll just put it in their in the most NPOV way I can and let readers decide. Responsiblebum 08:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Answer: I think that quote should not be added to criticisms. Criticisms should be cited from other people not contradictions Miriam made to herself. If you want you can create an entire section of Miriam quotable quotes in bullet format. Criticisms should be reserved for VALID issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.36.169.226 (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Son's suicide

Perhaps we can add details on the son's suicide death. Miriam said something about UP Law Professors and classmates teasing her son about her being crazy or unhinged. This supposedly drove her son to suicide. She tried to sue UP but you can ask any UP law student and it's standard practice to tuant, tease, initmidate etc. any law student. It's suppose to prepare them for future law practice. Responsiblebum 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The above statement an understatement because "tease and intimidate" should be replaced by "insulted". It is not common to "insult people and definitely not common to insult even members of your family" in an interview. And yes, I already asked a UP law student in U.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.159.4 (talk • contribs) 06:09, November 17, 2006 (UTC)
Well I must check with UP on this whether insult is off limits. From what I know it isn't. Still it is worth mentioning the circumstances of the son's suicide. Responsiblebum 08:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You can start by making a thorough investigation a) checking police records/interviews from witnesses b) ask the family themselves including Miriam c) conduct interviews from former classmates and professors. Do not rely on Miriam statements alone as she might be angry at the time her son committed suicide i.e. her allegations might be unfounded. Then edit this page and cite your sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.36.169.226 (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Sentences?

After President Corazon Aquino declared her intention not to seek another term in the 1992 elections, Santiago ran for president, seeking Aquino's endorsement. She founded the People's Reform Party and invited Ramon Magsaysay, Jr. to be her running mate. The party did not have any other candidates at the national level and endorsed only local candidates Alfredo Lim and Lito Atienza for the position of mayor and vice mayor of Manila. Aquino decided instead to back her then-Defense Secretary Fidel V. Ramos in his bid for the presidency.

Remarks: Im not quite sure about this one, the last sentence seems to be missplaced as it is the next thing that happened AFTER the first sentenced and this last sentence is also the reason why the current second sentence happend. Anybody agrees? Daimengrui 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Admiration and Criticism" removed temporarily

Had to remove this section temporarily since:

  1. It's difficult to source all the statements and there's too much POV.
  2. It's named "Admiration and Criticism" but there's no criticism.

Here's the original text if any of you have suggestions as to whether or not to bring it back in a more neutral way:

Miriam might be the most awarded public official to date. Her citations range from academic and professional to public service. They include the Ten Outstanding Young Men Award for law and the 1988 Ramon Magsaysay Award for government service. She was regarded by many common Filipinos as the most intelligent Filipina.

Admired for her intellectual superior, opponents find it difficult to destroy Miriam's public image. However, her opponents think that they can use the same admiration in a negative way. They called her "names" and have invented various stories about her; a cheap tactic to destroy a woman with outstanding academic and professional achievements. But despite the "gimmicks" and "black propaganda" created against her, Santiago's popularity did not waver. For her millions of fans, she is still the same admirable Miriam, best known for her unique charisma, which media reporters just love to call, "Miriam Magic". Her uncommon words were published in a book entitled Miriam's Dictionary (a slang expression different from Merriam Webster's Dictionary).

As you can see, the whole section is nothing but praise, and neglects the fact that a significant number of apolitical Filipinos have referred to Mrs. Santiago in the past as "Brenda". It also neglects that many Filipinos cheered the late Senator Raul Roco when he caught Senator Santiago off-guard during the impeachment trials of the deposed President Joseph Estrada. --Edward Sandstig 13:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I inserted the removed passages in to the first section of the entry, but edited in a way that POV is lessened. I think it is important to point out that she remains popular despite criticisms. I see no need to specify the criticisms per se since it borders on libel, but it is suffice to say that she weathered through it.Factotum73 02:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
A statement like "for her millions of fans, she is still the same Miriam, best known for her unique charisma, which media reporters just love to call, "Miriam Magic"" is complete fluff and I won't have it in the article. If there's been some serious discussion about what "Miriam Magic" is, we can include that, provided there are sources. I've let a lot of stuff slip through, but really everything needs to be attributed to a reliable source. I've got other stuff taking my time on Wikipedia, but I'm making this article a priority to ensure that it doesn't become a fluff piece again. –  Anþony  talk  10:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Namecalls to Santiago should not be placed in Criticisms, these can be mentioned in the narratives describing her political career as these erupted during th 1992 presidential elections. Miriam claims that these lowly remarks were made because of the lack of corruption practices they can allegate against her (Cutting Edge: The Politics of Reform in the Philippines, 1993 MDS). Focus criticisms on issues she took a stance on and was criticized also dont forget to cite your sources. --Daimengrui 17:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

A fair bit of work needs doing, including correcting capitalisation of headers, etc., copy-editing, and making more NPoV. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have gone over the article and tagged numerous unreferenced assertions. This article needs more work. Rmcsamson 23:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Santiago on Plunder Case and Accusation against Senators

I added her statement on the consequences of the decision on Erap.

--Florentino floro 05:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the important accusation against her own colleagues.

--Florentino floro 05:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of her Son

I added the major news on the expulsion of her son from ARC.

--Florentino floro 14:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I find this unnecessary. The issue does not directly concern her. Factotum73 03:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Removal of section on "Chinese embassy, Filipino-Chinese group slam Santiago ‘slur’ "

The manner of writing of this section highlights that of the Filipino-Chinese group, not the subject herself. In addition, the last paragraph of the section is merely tangential to its precedents and does not improve on the topic the section's title suggests. In my opinion, if it won't be written properly and appropriately, it must not be added at all. Factotum73 04:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to strike out paragraph from "Early Life"

It has been claimed that the Filipino masses regard her as possibly the most intelligent living Filipino citizen and the most academically prepared public official.[3] Many female law students view her as an epitome of women empowerment, scholastic competence, and professionalism.[3] However, a considerable number of lawyers, academicians, political analysts, journalists, and activists measure her as a traditional corrupt politician, carrying high levels of arrogance, greed for power, and opportunism. She is often quoted as having described less educated Filipinos as "species of lower life forms".[3]

The above paragraph is missplaced. I'll be removing it for the simple reason that it lacked substance and purely opinionated. Even with sources, this is a wiki biography entry not a comment/editorial opinion article. 210.14.21.200 08:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hyphen?

Isn't it supposed to have a hyphen? Like Miriam Defensor-Santiago? --Howard the Duck 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

3 stiches, Ulo, head accident

After Rene Saguisag's 7 broken ribs, on November 8, 2007, and after my disbarment case (A.C. No. 7663: Disbarment Case, Judge Floro vs. Sen. M. D. Santiago, First Disbarment Case in History), this dire OMEN is only the 2nd after A.R. Santiago allegedly shot his head. 2 heads one stone, or rather bird? Expand this, do not deleted, since is is an OMEN of her fall. - On April 14, 2008, Miriam Defensor-Santiago was serously injured and rushed to the Cardinal Santos Medical Center, Greenhils, San Juan City, after she slipped and bumped her head during the birthday party of her husband, Narciso, in Mandaluyong City. She had to undergo surgery requiring three stitches on her head.Abs-Cbn Interactive, Miriam slips, bumps head during spouse's birthday --Florentino floro (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit is absolutely out of order. Judge Floro has a personal vendetta against Defensor-Santiago. He is seizing on a minor injury and blowing it out of proportion. maxsch (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I filed a disbarment case against her which was dismissed last week. I lost, and is my continuous search for truth, justice and fairness under Divine Rule of Law, a personal vendetta? I am a poor judge, renting a house without any connection. I am out of the corridors of political and judicial power. All I have is the light, the violet light which struck 3 days, after my birthday, November 5, 2007, Motion filed in court detailing fraud, lies and deceit in the 75 pages decision, which made me jobless in pretend world, concentrating on pages 2 and 12 on Rene Saguisag my lawyer in that case, before whom I knelt and begged, for justice, and that lawyer whom I dismissed as counsel, had 7 broken ribs, I ask you, is this "ungodly reprisal"? How can I convince the court to reconsider my disbarment case? Is it not enough for this little [elf]] to do some elfin magic to let this Senator fell? Oh, just a day after Lito Atienza broke his left arm and faced 2 hours surgery? For you it is not notable, but under Wiki rules, it is supreme in its notabality: how can a Senator fall? Blown-out of proportion? If only, my 2 articles were not deleted, you will find how, Nene Pimentel underwent spinal surgery of pinched nerves, a month after he denied my job application and after I cursed Koko Pimentel to have lost painfully to Miguel Zubiri. I am a prophet. On notability, I do not predict in quatrains like Nostradamus, I write my predictions here and there, before the coming to pass of the event: Vide my prophecy on July 11, 2007 on Teresita de Castro. Wikipedia must be proud to have an editor who is not only a prophet but an Angel of Death. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disbarment Case Dismissed and Head Fall, not Notable?

I just received this Supreme Court Resolution in disbarment administrative case A.C. No. 7663[1][2], which dismissed my disbarment case (the very first in Philippine history docketed against a Philippine senator since 1901, you can check the Court, www.supremecourt.gov.ph), last week, and I uploaded it on flickr and friendster to prove to all of you that the head fall and 3 stitches of Santiago are not coincidences but a prophecy of "godly reprisal" against lies, deceit and corruption in courts and government. Assume good faith in editing, and this edit on the head fall, supported by a Supreme Court authentic resolution in bank, first in history, would suffice to prove my point that the edit of her fall is NOTABLE and cures the neutrality of the biased article which showed her false wares. - --Florentino floro (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ICJ bid

I added these, on the landmark bid to the ICJ, since she failed to get S.C. endorsement. The Supreme Court gave her zero votes, while the Judicial and Bar Council, gave her only one vote. She went ballistic then and called the SC members as "idiots."www.abs-cbnnews, RP faces tough challenge in ICJ campaign for Santiago ABS-CBN reported that the Philippine government on May, 2008 had been facing "an uphill battle in pushing Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s candidacy in the International Court of Justice. First, some countries are moving to oppose her. Second, domestically, some quarters in the legal community have raised concerns because she has not qualified for the highest court in the country. She is also handicapped by her recent gaffes in the Senate." For her ICJ bid, Santiago failed to get the Supreme Court endorsement but was only, formally nominated by a national group formed for the international campaign. She needs an absolute majority votes from the UN General Assembly and the Security Council which will vote separately, before winning the seat.www.abs-cbnnews, RP faces tough challenge in ICJ campaign for Santiago --Florentino floro (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Santiago, however decried the ABS-CBN News Online article and stated that she “will avail of her options, such as libel suit or privilege speech on Monday, or whether she will just suffer in silence from the Lopez media firm."GMA NEWS.TV, Miriam mulls libel suit over 'unfair' report on her ICJ candidacySantiago also described Filipino Congressmen as idiots, due to their plan to pass legislation on the Philippine archipelago baselines, and she called one congressman “fungus-faced” and the others as “tatlo singko” (cheap).manilatimes.net, Idiot or mad? --Florentino floro (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Aixie (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Aixie

I edited the article on the ICJ bid because the article contained non sequitur news information. It was also very one sided, without conjecture as to why such was said:

Santiago also described Filipino Congressmen as idiots, due to their plan to pass legislation on the Philippine archipelago baselines, and she called one congressman “fungus-faced” and the others as “tatlo singko” (cheap).manilatimes.net, Idiot or mad?

Furthermore, most of the references were intentionally chosen to depict only one side of the news; other sources were not considered.

The 2010 presidency

Santiago, on June 27, 2008, announced that she might run for president in the Philippine general election, 2010, if she is not elected in the ICJ: “I would have to resign [as senator] because the term [of an ICJ judge] will begin by about the first week of January and I would miss about one year of my term. So if that happens, I hope that the electorate will forgive me; If I don’t make it, then I’ll probably run for president of the Philippines. That is just to put terror in the heart of my enemies; But I do know that my enemies will heave a collective sigh relief [if she wins an ICJ seat]."newsinfo.inquirer.net, Sen Santiago running for president to ‘terrorize’ foes--Florentino floro (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

78% Bar RATING

Santiago on September 27, 2007, apologized for saying China "China invented civilization in the East, but as well it invented corruption for all of human civilization."sunstar.com.ph, Senator apologizes for saying China ‘invented corruption’newsinfo.inquirer.net, Santiago officially apologizes to Chinese embassy On September 28, 2007, Santiago stated that she is sick of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and from Anorexia (symptom) On November 14, 2007, Santiago was injured after she slipped and bumped her head during the birthday party of her husband, Narciso, in Mandaluyong City and was brought to the Cardinal Santos Medical Center in Greenhils, San Juan City. Her head wound required 3 stitches.www.abs-cbnnews.com, Miriam slips, bumps head during spouse's birthday--Florentino floro (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ICJ

Miriam painfully lost her bid to me member of the ICJ. I suggest that this be added in the article|: As of November 6, 2008, the composition of the Court is as follows: Re-elected were France's Ronny Abraham and Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (terms expire on 5 February 2009|), while UK's Christopher Greenwood, Brazil’s Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade and Somalia's Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (terms begin on 6 February 2009) were newly elected. The declared candidates Sayeman Bula-Bula (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Philippines) and Maurice Kamto (Cameroon) lost in the final voting. The 3 new judges replaced UK's Rosalyn Higgins (as ICJ President), Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren of Venezuela and Madagascar’s Raymond Ranjeva (terms all expire on 5 February 2009).www.un.org,Five judges elected to serve on UN International Court of Justicetaiwannews.com, World's top court among nations gets new judges--Florentino floro (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why mention Drilon and Zamora?

In the fourth paragraph under Early life and education, is it really necessary to include where Drilon and Zamora worked after passing the 1969 Bar Exams? Isn't it simply a case of envy because they got better job offers after being the 3rd & 1st placers? (Contrast this to her 78% passing grade.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackyjabber (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Political parties

Miriam has never been a member of the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino nor of the Nacionalista Party. Yes she has supported Joseph Estrada and then Manny Villar but she has always been the leader of the People's Reform Party which she founded. So to anyone adding the PMP and NP as "political parties", please stop. –HTD 03:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Did the Office of Senator Santiago Write This? Or is it from RAM's archives?

This is purely political propaganda. Referring to Newsweek as "leftist" is simply ignorance and displays a profound lack of knowledge of political theory and ideology - let alone reality - unless, of course, it's just another of the many deliberate, partisan statements in this article. This nonsense does not belong on Wiki. It's up there with the official biographies of the al Sa'ud family posted as scholarly biographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.164.253 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Miriam Defensor Santiago/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GregJackP (talk · contribs) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. There should be no inline references in the lead, see MOS:LEDE.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Uses a number of bare URLs for references, no consistent citation style, dead links.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). FN2 does not support the cited text. FN3 does not support the cited text. FN5 self-published. FN6 dead (redirect). FN7 self-published. FN10 dead (no connection). Just checking the first 10 footnotes shows significant problems with the references, not counting the fact that they are not formatted properly.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Quick fail. There are too many problems with the references to pass, or to place on hold.

International Criminal Court

Since she is still very active as senator, has she ever attended an ICC session? 112.198.79.170 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

POV / promotional cleanup

This article reads in places like a self-published promotional piece. Indeed I've just reworked a section of it that was lifted, more or less word for word, from the autobiography published on the subject's own website. I've also cleaned up a few other bits, like the over-familiar references to her as "Miriam" and the long list of awards for which the only source was the subject's own Facebook page. Those were just a few things I noticed on a quick read-through. The article needs more work still, and I invite other editors to take a stab. JohnInDC (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I went away for a year and the cruft creeped back in. This reads in places like a hagiography - unsourced to boot. I'm cleaning it up again. JohnInDC (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Downgrading importance from Top to Mid (WikiProject Philippines)

I am informing my fellow Filipino Wikipedians that I am downgrading the importance of this article from Top to Mid. For an article to be top importance in WikiProject Philippines, that article must be like a requirement for a Filipino encyclopedia. I believe this article doesn't meet top importance at this moment. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miriam Defensor Santiago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Fix lede

The lede of this article should comply with the 4-paragraph limit as per WP:LEAD. Editors who are expert on the subject might want to rewrite some of the sections here; it's an utter mess.Matieszyn talk 11:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Miriam Defensor Santiago. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miriam_Defensor_Santiago/Archive_1&oldid=1137014302"