Talk:Miriam Defensor Santiago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miriam Defensor Santiago article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Unclear sentences 2 Unclear sentences - Corrected 3 Unsourced statements (laughable) 4 Some topics to add in criticism 5 Son's suicide 6 Bias / Not Balanced Article 7 Reverted to previous version 8 How to refer to the Miriam Defensor Santiago in the article 9 "Admiration and Criticism" removed temporarily 10 Misplaced Sentences?

[edit] 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)

[edit] Unclear sentences - Corrected

I made some grammatical changes to appropriately point the pronoun she to the subject Miriam.

Miriam lost the favor of Mrs. Aquino's endorsement to Fidel Ramos; however she was consistently gaining public support for her candidacy for president.

Also I added some facts about the 2nd quoted text. This is in relation to the first ever impeachment trial against a Philippine president that happened in November 2000 to January 2001.

During the impeachment trial of then President Joseph Joseph Estrada, Miriam showed her stance in the proceedings by voting against the opening of a bank envelope containing evidence that will indict the former president. On January 13, 2001, she, along with 10 other senators voted against the opening of this envelope. The incident consequently ended the impeachment trial and led to the second EDSA People Power Revolution which removed Joseph Estrada as president.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.36.158.69 (talk • contribs) 05:51, November 9, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 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). —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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).

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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).

[edit] Bias / Not Balanced Article

• The article about Miriam Santiago has many one-sided statements there. I think it needs a major overhaul for this article. -Frj1947 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)