Talk:Leni Robredo

Discussion at Tambayan Philippines

There has been discussion of this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Missing_information_from_the_Leni_Robredo_wiki

The discussion in question has been archived, and is now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive39#Missing_information_from_the_Leni_Robredo_wiki - Alternativity (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

She's the 14th and not the 16th VP :) Jeff datingaling (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to revert vague heading "Activism" to "Early Government Work" and "Civil Society Work"

This is a proposal to revert the heading "Activism" to "Early Government Work" and "Civil Society Work", for the following reasons:

1) "Activism" is vague, and implies that the work done during this period was private in nature, whereas the activities the subject engaged in during this period were a. employment in a government institutions and b. institutional engagement within the civil society sector, neither of which is public.

2) "Activism" does not distinguish between two very distinct kinds of engagement already described under #1.

Normally, I feel that rewriting clarity, completeness, and thoroughness would need no explanation, but I would like to seek a consensus so that this article would stop getting truncated in favor of what I feel is a misguided and eventually reader-confusing effort to shorten the article and minimize the number of headings. Seeking input from the wikicommunity, Alternativity (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the heading should be changed. I think that "Early career" would be a more appropriate heading for that section, given that the information provided in that section basically talks about her career before she became a nationally known figure following her husband's death. PatTag2659, a hopeful aviator (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur and, given that this discussion has been going on for a while whithout other comments, I will make the change shortly. I suppose we can continue to discuss here if anyone has other ideas, though. Anyway. Thanks! - Alternativity (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Recent edits to this article (e.g. revision as of 19:16 9 June 2016) are acts of vandalism, presumably from anti-Robredo/anti-LP shills. How can we request for this article to be protected? --Hijo de Caridad95 (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2016

Jcbangat (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leni Robredo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 09:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Right now, there are significant issues with the prose. I'm not sure that they are insurmountable in and of themselves, but the prose needs serious work. The bulleted list is the biggest issue, but there are several issues with grammar also.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The list of legislation needs to be summarized and incorporated into the text. I would suggest making a separate section titled "political positions and initiatives" or something like that, and breaking it up into sub-sections by topic if need be.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references are listed, and appear to be formatted appropriately

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Several sources are primary sources

   C. It contains no original research:

   Several entries in the "legislative portfolio section are not sourced.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   several instances of close paraphrasing detected. I have removed the most egregious ones, which now means that the article is not comprehensive.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   see previous comment. Additionally, further details on her career as VP, as well as further details about her initial transition into politics. Further information about her personal life might also be helpful.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It is focused

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No particular issues with neutrality.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   There has been some vandalism, but that shouldn't count against its preparedness, and should hopefully be taken care of by protection. No substantive dispute.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I am not an expert in this respect, but all images are tagged as being in the public domain, and sufficient explanations have been given as to why.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Minor issues, see below.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See closing comments below.

Specific comments

Images

• I would prefer the captions for images 2 and 3 to be a little more detailed; the second caption should mention the fact that he was her husband, and "LP" in the third is confusing without context: can you use the full-form, and link it?

Early life and education

• The first source in the early life section does not mention her date of birth in the text. Is it in the video?
• Is the "Inquirer" source in the same section actually reporting all that biographical information, or is it reproducing the information released by her campaign? From the appearance of the site, it appears to be the latter
• What is the precise law degree that she obtained? That information must be available, surely.
• Since the article is titled "Leni Robredo," I believe the appropriate style is to refer to her throughout as "Robredo" except where it might cause confusion with another Robredo. Thus, she should be referred to as "Gerona." Phrasing the first sentence as "Leni Robredo was born Maria Leonor Santo Tomas Gerona on ..." etc

Early career

• If you are describing her as graduating from law school in the previous section, then it is a little confusing to go back to a period during law school in the next section. IMO you need a phrase in the "Early life and education" describing her hiatus: alternatively, you could simply shift her graduation to this section.
• "integrated area development planning" is jargon that most people will not understand: I'm not sure what it means myself. Can you explain it?
• " a role in which she often took up the defense for cases pursued by her husband, who by then had become Mayor of Naga" this sentence is confusing. Most people would understand her role to be that of a public prosecutor; is this incorrect? Why was she defending cases, and why was the mayor "pursuing" cases? This needs rewriting.
• "Later, the group's focus shifted to include helping rural women to acquire capital in order to become competitive markets." I am fairly certain no woman wants to become a competitive market :) please fix this sentence: I'm not sure what it's saying at the moment.
• "aimed to encourage young legal professionals to take on leadership roles" does not seem to be supported by the source given.
• Source 11 is a video, in which Robredo herself is speaking; as such, it is not a reliable source in this situation.
• I would prefer to see a little more detail with respect to the organization that she founded: right now there is just one sentence.

Political career

• The biggest issue here by far is the bulleted list of her legislative proposals. Many entries are unsourced, and many others are based on primary sources; which means that they should not be in a list at all. IMO only those pieces of legislation on which her contribution has received significant coverage in secondary sources needs to be included here.
• Furthermore, the entire section is written like a resume or CV; and the "portfolio" title does not help.
• Some of the sources seem to suggest that Robredo only ran for office because of her husbands' death: this is not mentioned in the article.
• Voting for an act does not equate to being a "strong supporter" of it: a better source is needed there.
• In the first paragraph, mentioning the names of the two acts without further detail is not very helpful, because most readers are not likely to know what those acts are.
• There are several issues of close paraphrasing in the political career section: chiefly, descriptions of legislation that have been lifted from elsewhere. Some of these are severe enough that I have had to remove them.
• There are several grammatical errors in this section: "mandated that government agencies..." "Concerned that the marginalized sector" (marginalized communities are rarely referred to as a singular sector, etc.

Closing comments

When I began this review I was hopeful that this article could pass, but after digging into it I'm afraid I have to fail it. There are rather too many issues to be fixed within a reasonable timeframe. These include several instances of close paraphrasing, which I've now removed, but which means that the article lacks some information. Furthermore, more details are required in some sections, and the bulleted list needs to be incorporated into the text. There are several bits of unsourced information, some things not supported by the cited source, and some things that are cited to primary sources that need secondary sources. There are several issues with grammar as well. I would suggest the following: fix the issues with citations and copyright, and then submit a request at WP:GOCE, which will hopefully take care of the remaining prose issues. After that the article will stand a much better chance at GAN. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Republic Act RA10655

Under Legislative Portfolio, the article lists, "Republic Act RA10655 (HB05280), decriminalizing premature marriages, enacted on March 13, 2015," with premature marriage linking to Child Marriage. This link is incorrect. Child marriage is illegal in the Philippines. Republic Act RA10655 repeals Article 351 of Act No. 3815 of the revised penal code. Article 351 reads:

Art. 351. Premature marriages. Any widow who shall marry within three hundred and one day from the date of the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she shall have been pregnant at the time of his death, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose marriage shall have been annulled or dissolved, if she shall marry before her delivery or before the expiration of the period of three hundred and one day after the legal separation.

Republic Act RA10655 allows widows remarry before waiting 300 days. The act has nothing to do with child marriages. This interpretation is confirmed by an article in the Philippine Star.

I understand that the page is semi-protected. Can someone please fix the article? Thanks! 192.80.111.38 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

Under Legislative Portfolio, the article lists, "Republic Act RA10655 (HB05280), decriminalizing premature marriages, enacted on March 13, 2015," with premature marriage linking to Child Marriage. This link is incorrect. Child marriage is illegal in the Philippines. Republic Act RA10655 repeals Article 351 of Act No. 3815 of the revised penal code. Article 351 reads:

Art. 351. Premature marriages. Any widow who shall marry within three hundred and one day from the date of the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she shall have been pregnant at the time of his death, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos. The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose marriage shall have been annulled or dissolved, if she shall marry before her delivery or before the expiration of the period of three hundred and one day after the legal separation.

Republic Act RA10655 allows widows remarry before waiting 300 days. The act has nothing to do with child marriages. This interpretation is confirmed by an article in the Philippine Star.

I understand that the page is semi-protected. Can someone please fix the article? Thanks!

192.80.111.38 (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Signature

Still no signature of Leni in the public domain yet? matieszyn (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Leni Robredo's full name

The cited source "'Vote PH 2016: Leni Robredo'. Philippine Daily Inquirer. April 10, 2016. Retrieved April 12, 2016." states her full name as Maria Leonor Santo Tomas Gerona Robredo. However, this article states her full name as Maria Leonor "Leni" Santo Tomas Robredo (née Gerona). Shouldn't it be Maria Leonor "Leni" Gerona Robredo (born Maria Leonor Santo Tomas Gerona)? With Santo Tomas being the birth middle name, Gerona being the birth surname, and Robredo being the married surname. Leni is also being called as Leni Lugaw and being tagged as dilawan as she opposes the Duterte administration and she is also known as a puppet string of Liberal Party. Jollibinay (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jollibinay: I agree. I have corrected the entry in the lead; oddly enough the Philippine name template got it right. Edit: Btw, whenever you are starting a discussion in the talk page, please post it below the page. Slightlymad (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article has a lot of NPOV issues. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" however I believe that this article does not abide by this rule because it uses politically charged statements and indiscriminate info. Some statements are also politically biased and just false. For example:

• "President Duterte called Robredo incompetent because she was a woman" - Not true. The reason stated was she was not capable of leading Philippines. source here
• "Duterte supporters had tried to impeach her" - Also not true. Even though source is dead, the headline stated "Duterte wants impeachment bids against VP stopped" source here (not working anymore)
• "Duterte supporters made fake news against her when she expressed her dissent for the Drug War" - not stated in source.
• "Senator Leila de Lima reveals plot to ouster VP Robredo to be replaced by Bongbong Marcos" - unverified, accusation came from a detained opposition senator. source here
• "Robredo criticized the proposed federal charter that would benefit political dynasties over economic bills' - editorialized, unsourced comment in bold. Also not in source given.

I think there are more, but these are just the ones I spotted. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 03:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not checked the entire article but these are spot on. These needs to be either rephrased or removed.   Sub |_HMU  08:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The year Robredo passed the Bar exam

Based on cited article https://web.archive.org/web/20210227130033/https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/777063/bar-flunker-leni-robredo-tells-of-rebound. Leni Robredo passed the bar on 1997, not in 1996. Change "She passed the bar exams in 1996." to "She passed the bar exams in 1997." 119.94.174.183 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection request

@Kyeotkyeotq:,@Itsquietuptown:,@Mako001: I would recommend that you merge your requests for protection for this page, instead of having three separate requests. Happy Editing! Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

For their elections, maybe make it extended protected?

There's going to be a lot of opposition and even autoconfirmed users which will lead to an edit war. Would it be feasible to raise the level so only extended confirmed users may be able to edit? 112.198.254.161 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

New York Times in the lead?

Why is New York Times, a publication foreign to the Philippines, used in the lead to qualify the character of Leni Robredo’s campaign? That information should be moved to the body, and should focus less on foreign interpretations of her campaign. 2600:1700:5890:69F0:95BD:4D37:3558:EDE5 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

remove "sara duterte" at succeeded by at the section 14th vice president of the philippines, no official announcement yet. 120.29.78.126 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Already done VictorTorres2002 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

This page holds non-truths about former presidents and needs to be edited. There is no burden of evidence that the former president Ferdinand Marcos was a kleptocracy. This in itself is libel and this biography is biased to make the failed president-elect appear better than her opposition. BigpoppaMC (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Please provide edits requests of the form "please change X to Y". You must specify the changes you actually want and not simply say it needs to be edited because of reason x. Please also provide reliable sources regarding the edits you would need. Please reference this article WP:RS for a list of reliable sources to help you find the citations needed for your edits.

Regarding Marcos being a kleptocrat please provide sufficient sourcing that proves that he wasnt a kleptocrat. Currently existing reliable sources lean to the judgement that Ferdinand Marcos was indeed a kleptocrat. However if you would like to contest this, once again please provide sufficient sourcing that shows the opposite.

Regarding libel please provide sufficient sourcing that currently written segments of the article are false as per the definition of libel which can also be read here on wikipedia.

For bias, please show which segments you would like to change to retain the neutrality of this article. And provide reliable sources as mentioned repeatedly

Thank you and happy editing Firekiino (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

add former vice president

add former vice president Gooskitzo (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done; VP-elect Sara Duterte just did her oathtaking in advance, but as per law she will become VP in June 30, 2022 and Robredo will step down on the same date.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

Change “Three universities have conferred Robredo with honorary doctorates” to “Four universities have conferred Robredo with honorary doctorates.” InvictusMarchio (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

As the Infobox Officeholder template is generally intended for elected posts, it's not appropriate to indicate her role as chairperson of Angat Buhay within the infobox since the said position is not a elected post though such information can be (and has been) mentioned in the relevant sections of this article and the Angat Buhay page. I'll leave the decision to retain or remove such from editors that are more familiar with this matter. -Ian Lopez @ 12:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Cabinet positions and other agency positions are considered to be appointments than elected posts though. Anyway, if the template is more intended for government positions anyway, then it should be removed. I'll also likely do the same with removing the CDC officeholder section in the Arthur Tugade article if this is the case. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Strong Retain. This is the organization that the former vice president is with right now after stepping down and this will keep her relevant in the national landscape, her being with the largest NGO in the country. Reyrefran (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The infobox is meant for government positions in general. Angay Buhay is an NGO. I mean, Donald Trump's infobox does not list his tenure as president of the Donald J. Trump Foundation for example. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see Template:Infobox officeholder, head of an NGO is not an office but an occupation, add under personal occupation. Sciencefish (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Reyrefran: You are highly discouraged from continuing your edit war to include that box considering the points raised in this discussion and previous edit summaries. Chlod (say hi!) 09:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

I want to edit Leni's life as a former politician 112.202.163.156 (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 06:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)