Talk:Leila de Lima

Misplaced disputed tag

 * The above tag is misplaced on the talk page. Clean-up tags like " " need to be placed in the article after the disputed text. In the template, the words "Talk page section" need to be replaced with the heading label of a section on the talk page. Since a separate talk page section also needs to be created to discuss the disputed text, I think it is a good idea to create the talk page section, first, to start the discussion with a separate known section heading, then add the tag into the article text after the target talk page section is known and defined. That way, during preview, (I assume editors know how to preview.) one can test that the discuss link will open the talk page section bookmark on the talk page in a separate browser window or tab. This means one can get the link right before one saves the tag into the article page. If editors haven't done this before they might want to experiment first in their sandbox. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY
This section appears to violate both: "De Lima, who chaired the Commission on Human Rights and was Justice Secretary, is the face of the anti-EJK campaign in the Philippines. She is against the brutal ways propelled by the deadly Philippine Drug War. Her position and investigation on the war irked Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and led to her imprisonment through trumped-up charges with no concrete evidences"

It also makes mention in her personal section that "De Lima has a son, named Israel, who is an 'inspiration' to her. She is fond of both dogs, which visit her in prison occasionally, and stray cats, who she feed everyday inside her detention cell.[79][80] She is a practicing Catholic."

Why does the fact she finds her son inspirational NOTABLE. Or the fact she is fond of dogs.

72.139.196.172 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your point is about "De Lima, who chaired the Commission on Human Rights and was Justice Secretary, is the face of the anti-EJK campaign in the Philippines. She is against the brutal ways propelled by the deadly Philippine Drug War. Her position and investigation on the war irked Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte and led to her imprisonment through trumped-up charges with no concrete evidences" The sentence is sourced so WP:VERIFY isn't an issue, unless you are contesting the reliability of the source and/or claiming the source doesn't say what it is claimed to say. As to WP:NPOV, can you propose more neutral wording? As to the notability of info in her personal section, I must say I agree; these are not necessary to include in the encyclopedia. 35.1.161.177 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well the source doesn't say what is claimed (at least I can't find it) but even if it did that is the opinion of a single writer working for the newspaper not established fact nor does the author of the section make mention of any sort evidence in the article that could establish these claims. I am a noob here so I have no idea the ins and outs of wikipedia but I would hope your standards for encyclopedia content were higher then this.

As far as a rewrite goes I would actually state the crime she was charged with along with the evidence (video, corroborated witness testimony, bank statements) and then if necessary put in the content of her supporters feel the charges are politically motivated based on her opposition to Duetre.

I would also avoid the use of loaded language like "trumped up charges" and "no conclusive proof" as it is not a legal standard.

Like I said I'm just a reader who came across the article following the news. I have no interest in rewriting or being an admin

72.139.200.11 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRIVACY?
I reverted several edits that removed certain info on the senator. These have all been documented by WP:RS. Is there a conflict of interest here, @? As far as i know, privacy guidelines governs user info not BLP articles. The senator is a public figure and so long as info are backed up by RS, they should stay.--RioHondo (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issues?
@, at least if you are going to tag the article for any issues, you must at least start a talk discussion so that your concerns are raised and editors can quickly address them.--RioHondo (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @RioHondo
 * The Controversies section violates Libel, WP:BLPCRIME and COATRACK.
 * The Personal life section violates WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE by listing the names of her children, her former spouse and her sister. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. But these have all been published and broadcast by the President of the Philippines for the whole world to see and hear. The neutral section tag should suffice for now, as even if you remove those entries, there is no hiding the controversies present in practically all Philippine media and RS.--RioHondo (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversy
I think the fact that the head of state, especially this particular one, accused her of a range of serious crimes for which she would spend the rest of her life in jail if she's lucky, makes this more than a "controversy". For the same reason, the time the accusations occurred is more relevant than when the supposed offences supposedly took place. Obviously the accusations affect her work as Senator (they already have). zzz (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey shhwww, as far as the reading public is concerned, it is a controversy and the allegations don't pertain to her work as senator but from a scandal in her work heading the Bureau of Corrections as Justice Sec. Keep it neutral and WP:NPOV, and spare me your appeal for her as if she was your client.--RioHondo (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong user. zzz (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. Ok. But you get the idea. WP:NPOV and WP:COI.--RioHondo (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As soon as anyone actually gets round to expanding the section, they will have to add that bit back anyway, as it wouldn't make any sense to separate it. NPOV and COI? So I must work for her if I try to integrate a paragraph out of a "Controversy" section into the article? And I must be biased if I think being threatened by President Duterte with 30 years in jail or worse is not trivial? For someone who works in the same building? zzz (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality and Utter Nonsense
As a person living in the Philippines this article is complete nonsense, offensive, and reads as though it were extracted from the leftist MotherJones publication. There is no mention of De Lima being caught on film literally in bed with a known drug pusher nor the mounds of evidence against her for profiting from the drug trade. I'm very disappointed in wikipedia for allowing this article to remain as it is. I always thought wikipedia was free of a political agenda now I can see I was wrong. Starnexus (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. 1, You can't even verify if the De Lima sex tape is real. You may quote your sources but the operative word is that it is an "alleged" sex tape. No. 2, the "mounds" of evidence are purely anecdotal. Aside from the President himself linking her to drug trade, no other independent investigation has been made on the matter. A declaration from a sitting head of government does not count as "evidence". Also, why blame Wikipedia if you are free to edit the article and provide your sources? 103.192.184.61 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The Senator section is getting too long...
Currently revising this article, but I'm stuck at the Senator section. I've added a multiple issues for it for now since it has many problems for me to consider at once.

In the next days or so, I'll be editing the section extensively to include only the encyclopedic content. I'm planning to split it into her 'Senatorial works' or something, and the 'Controversy' issue she had currently right now with the administration.

Any thoughts?

GinawaSaHapon (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)