Talk:Jamby Madrigal

Failed GA

As of 21 October 2006, I am making a speedy failing for this article to reach Good Article status, per WP:WIAGA, because of the following fatal reason: This article is totally unsourced. Please provide your reliable sources according to WP:CITE to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: neutral point of view, no element of original research and verifiable. I've put a template in this article for editors to fill in their references. Please do not consider it as discouraging. Furthermore, because this article has a subject of a living person, please conform it with WP:BLP guidelines. If all of those matters above have been fixed, this article can be renominate it again. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 12:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Relisted back

I see 3 sources used, so I re-listed back at WP:GAC to have a normal GA review. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article has a number of phrases that give it a hagiographic tone, and keep the article from attaining a neutral point of view. These phrases include:

• "Given a patriotic lineage..."

• "a fairy tale wedding"

• "She embodies the activist patriot of Edmund Burke’s aphorism."

• "In her struggle to fight for genuine reforms, she was subjected to the indignity of being at the receiving end of the Manila Police water cannons..."

If you wish to include praise of the subject, you will have to find reliable sources who have praised her. and cite them. Also, the article will be unbalanced if it does not consider criticisms that have been made of the subject as well. MLilburne 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article has been failed as a GA primarily because it is not broad enough in coverage. Despite the removal of the most egregious examples, it still has problems with POV. It includes no criticisms of Madrigal, and reads very much as a celebration of her career. The tone could stand to be quite a bit more neutral. MLilburne 17:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV problems

"Verily a source of shame among her countrymen and to her fellow idiotic senators in the Philippine chamber, Jamby Madrigal got a seat in the Senate with the help of actress Judy Ann Santos." Mbaluyos (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Feud, Chito's Fabulous inheritance

On April, 2008, Jamby Madrigal questioned the 2006 court allowed (probated) will of Consuelo “Chito” Madrigal-Collantes, 87, who died on March 24, 2008, leaving her husband, Manuel Collantes, as the lone compulsory heir. Jamby was left out, while 40% of Doña Chito’ fabulous residuary estate, was bequeathed to Jamby's elder sister, Ma. Susana Madrigal, another 40% was to Vicente P. Gustav Warns, and the remaining 20% lawyer Gizela M. Gonzalez-Montinola, wife of Aurelio Montinola III, president of the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Could it maybe be edited to say something much simpler, like: "Jamby is fighting to get an inheritance from her aunt, though she was left out of the will." Now that I put it that way, why is it relevant to the article? I've taken it out for the moment. maxsch (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Is there any link to prove that she has delusions or none?

Why should this section of MENTAL HEALTH accuse her of mental delusions when there is no reference to support this? Currently diagnosed with reoccurring Monothematic delusion, she has filed a case in court contesting her being disinherited from the estate of her late multi-millionaire aunt and high-society icon, Consuelo “Chito” Madrigal-Collantes. Jamby attacked the validity of Madrigal-Collantes's last will and testament She also opposed Don Manuel Collantes' petition before Judge Oscar Pimentel of the Makati Regional Trial Court, Branch 148, to issue letters testamentary to to Atty. Perry L. Pe and Aurelio R. Montinola III, Bank of the Philippine Islands president, the joint executors of the will, to distribute the deceased's property to the heirs. Jamby was given 10 days to file formal motion to intervene in the case. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the mention of a delusional disorder for lack of evidence. It may be true, but it is too bold a claim to make without evidence. As for the court case about inheritance from her aunt, wikipedia is not a tabloid and as far as I can tell there is nothing notable about her contesting a will. (Unless it is included here as evidence that she does indeed suffer from a delusional disorder, ;) lol.) maxsch (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not the one who created the mental section here. In fact, I object above, on this unsourced or vindictive addition or edit by other editors who might not like her, hence not neutral; so your edit was correct, since there is no evidence at all that she has mental problems; but, but, but, remember that the estate being litigated is FABULOUS, and Chito Madrigal was not only NOTABLE as far as her estate is concerned here. Ergo, the legal battle is not only notable but the estate litigation is a fortune battle. Anyway, since you are not familiar with fabulous testamentary cases here, then, I am willing to wait for further developments (since the journalists did not reveal the amount of the estate (the reason is docket or legal fees here are staggering, and might have been compromised). - --Florentino floro (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say that I agreed with your reasoning about the delusional disorder. That was why I removed that portion of the article. As for the estate litigation, it seems to me that it is not yet certain that it is notable. If Jamby loses the case, would it be important to note that she had tried to get part of her aunt's estate and failed? I don't think that passes the notability requirement, as it would not be a significant event. If, however, she wins the case, and is significantly enriched by the settlement, it may become an important turning point in her life, and then, maybe, notable. For now, this is all speculation. I am not denying that the estate is fabulous, but for now, any mention of it in wikipedia belongs in the Chito Madrigal article, not here. Do you follow my point? 12.217.35.102 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)maxsch (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Chito Inheritance Lawsuit

I continue to be bewildered by the addition (this time by a different editor) of this lawsuit contesting her aunt's will. Why is a gold-digging lawsuit (that she will probably lose!) an important event in Jamby's personal life. Unless someone can provide some rationale for why this is notable (for wikipedia!!!), I will continue to remove it when it is added. maxsch (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Celebrated lawsuit, fabulous amount of suit

You are not familiar with celebrated cases here in Philippines. This CELEBRATED case, in not a mere telenovela as the good senator claimed. The empire of the Madrigal Family is more than a fortune, it is fabulous. Now, this is the FIRST testate case to be converted intestate, and of first impression in Philippine legal / succession history. Senator Madrigal is a tycoon, philanthropist, and the amount of the suit, is difficult to count. If you read Wikipedia articles on Philippine movies or stars, petty news are added by editors, as garbages and are advertisements making Wikipedia a classified ads. This one, you are contesting as not notable. Please have a rest, and hear from other editors on this. So, I have to add it here: On May 8, 2008, Jamby Madrigal cried on TV Patrol as she formally filed court pleadings to contest the validity of the last will and testament of her late billionaire relative Consuelo “Chito” Madrigal-Collantes. Her lawyer told Judge Oscar Pimentel that: “These two documents which were supposedly signed on the same day appear to contain two sets of signatures, [belonging] to two different individuals.”newsinfo.inquirer.net, Jamby Madrigal questions aunt’s signature on last willabs-cbnnews.com video, TV Patrol: Jamby cries over inheritance fightnewsinfo.inquirer.net, ‘Jamby’ asks court to block lawyer of billionaire aunt Further, as this celebrated case develops, top links of top TV and papers are pouring in. So, go get this. Let other editors examine this. You need to transcend your bias and prejudice in editing. Wikipedia is a neutral and balanced encyclopedia. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not been paying too much attention to the matter aside from reading the headlines... I think the matter of Jamby trying to get some of this inheritance is notable enough to mention in her article (since local news seems to be paying attention to the case), but just maybe two or three sentences worth. It shouldn't overwhelm the political stuff which is much more important and substantial. TheCoffee (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

When I first read the drippings of first news on this, I thought that she was sick. In addition, an unknown USER with IP address vandalized this article by adding alleged unsourced mental illness of the Senator. It was correctly deleted. But when I read more headlines, not tabloids, including the top TV Patrol Video where she really did not just cry, but I saw many TEARS fell from her eyes, and when, she stated on TV, that the estate is valued conservatively 500 Forbes, I added these here. Let it be remembered that I personally healed for 3 hours the tycoon or mogul Enrique Zobel de Ayala at his Ayala, Alabang house in 2000, as quadriplegic. But the Zobel's are not even in 500 Forbes. Madrigal is an empire, though. So, in Philippine legal succession history, from 1901 until today, Philippine courts never acquired jurisdiction over this kind of vast empire. Now, despite the fact that Jamby had to keep the amount secret lest she loose the case due to non-payment of docket fees, she sacrificed to TALK and at the same time did suffer payment of empire FEES in court. I will give you an example: I myself lost my house and lot - home civil case for non payment of P 200,000 alleged docket fees (on a mere P 2 million property), but it was reconsidered thereafter. Jamby has to pay millions of docket fees under Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court, were it not for this media statement. She could have made the pleadings IN BLANK on docket fees. But this statement will make her financially suffer. So, I want all of you to appreciate the MAGNITUDE and not just notable of this section of the article. It is more notable than any other edit. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that it is in the news, but it seems to me that it is decidedly temporary. If she does not win this lawsuit to get an inheritance, will it be a notable part of her bio that she tried and failed to get an inheritance? I think the answer to that is clearly no. If she does get an inheritance, it will merit at most a sentence to the effect of "after a legal battle, Jamby got XX money from the estate of her wealthy aunt Chito." So my argument is that during the trial, this is all speculative and sensational, and ultimately not informative. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The last thing this article needs is a play by play of the trial, "her lawyer told Judge Oscar Pimentel such and such, and then the estate's lawyer replied and the media thinks that it is all very important." maxsch (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Estate probed valued at 500 Forbes

I watched the TV Patrol video of how Sen. Jamby wept and many tears fell from her eyes. But I was shocked to hear the value of the estate: she said: 500 Forbes. So she clarified this in the submitted Motion to Intervene before the Makati Judge. And I challenge any lawyer or magistrate to submit here, any case in Philippine HISTORY where the estate probed under wills and succession is valued at 500 Forbes. This is the only succession case, where the value of the estate is fabulous: Madrigal stated that the inheritance battle has the elements of "betrayal, wholesale fraud, and probable foul." Accordingly, she disputed the will, not because of her disinheritance, but to protect the poor families who would benefit from the excluded Consuelo Chito Madrigal Foundation. Properties excluded from the will include a $15 million apartment in New York City; paintings (including a Chagall, by various Filipino masters, and a sketch by Jose Rizal); a $3-million helicopter; jewelry, and personal deposits in local and international banks. Jamby submitted to court, the fabulous value of the estate: "Conservatively, it has been said that the estate of Chito Madrigal can feed 8 million Filipinos with rice for 2 months, provide education to 200,000 scholars and build 40,000 classrooms."inquirer.net, Sen. Madrigal says she's fighting for her aunt's foundation --Florentino floro (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Forbes 500 is a yearly list of the top American companies, not an amount of money. I have never argued that there are not unique aspects to this case. The fundamental problem with including this news in the article is that it is not likely to remain notable, even if it is temporarily newsworthy. maxsch (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamby Madrigal. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601103152/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20090529-207727/Manuel-Collantes-is-dead-91 to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20090529-207727/Manuel-Collantes-is-dead-91

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)