Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Structural problem with article involving unbalanced curly bracket pairs

There are 588 occurrences of "2 open curly brackets", and 587 occurrences of "2 closed curly brackets" in this article, which should only occur in pairs. Hence this particular article can cause problems for automated page readers.

I don't have sufficient wikipedia skills to be able to figure out how to find the problem, can anyone help?

UPDATE: Actually it turns out I did find the location and supplied the missing casing bracket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smykytyn (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --BushelCandle (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Hi,

As much as I want to avoid talking about politics, but I saw this line on the first paragraph and was intrigued by it.

"One of the most controversial leaders of the 20th century, Marcos' rule was infamous for its corruption,[15][16][17][18]"

On a neutral point of view, he may be corrupt for others but he may be not for others. I also saw that 3 out of the 4 references (links 16, 17 and 18) have the same source. This may have some bias. These are just my initial observations.

elivic (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC) elivic

Marcos's corruption is a matter of fact, not of opinion. -Object404 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to prefix this page with the POV Lead clean-up message, etc.

For that matter, this article needs the appropriate template messages, provided that everyone is in concord about this. If his main rival Corazon Aquino gets at least one clean-up template message, and given that Philippine politics is polarized between these two people, why not give Marcos' article a tag to be cleaned up of any bias? The introductory section is filled with loaded words sandwiched in between actual information. That would be like when a person introduces a topic in a lecture, and some rando cuts in multiple times and shouts out their own view to the audience in an attempt to discredit the topic. This is an online encyclopedia, and its articles should not give a damn to public discourse of any intensity.

Look, I understand the prevailing dissenting viewpoint that "Ferdinand Marcos is a bad, bad dictator who wrought hardship and stole the livelihood of good Filipinos in order to perpetuate his extravagant rule" and something and somewhat, and you can cite your points with all the articles under the sun to support your view, but my goodness, the first sentence and paragraph of the article are no places to do that. These points should be placed where appropriate in the article, like the Legacy section, or even somewhere lower in the introduction as is standard for other people of Marcos' class. The citations can go with them, too.

One can ompare this article's introduction to those of a vein of Marcos' position in public discussion, such as Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro, predecessor Hugo Chávez and current rival Juan Guaidó. These people are pretty controversial, but their introductions are not as marred with misplaced information as the current version of Marcos' page.

We can start by introducing Marcos with simply the following:

"Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr. ... was a was a Filipino politician who served as the tenth President of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986. A leading member of the New Society Movement, he ruled as a dictator under martial law from 1972 until 1981. [**]"

As long as it follows both standard editing procedure concerning persons as well as balanced points-of-view and clean wiki-writing, it should be of acceptable quality for the top of the article. If it pleases anyone, the "dictator" part can stay, as it was de jure, pursuant to General Order no. 1, s. 1972:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, do hereby proclaim that I shall govern the nation and direct the operation of the entire Government, including all its agencies and instrumentalities, in my capacity and shall exercise all the powers and prerogatives appurtenant and incident to my position as such Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines."

This is not to say that I disagree with what's written in the introduction. I disagree with where it's written. Discussions about Marcos should be held elsewhere outside of Wikipedia's realms, but for now, we better get this thing over with soon.

—The above contribution has been made by Ferrand L. 15:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No. -Object404 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents", so information you mentioned still do belong in the lead section. -> Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section -Object404 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

40% of the existing 112 SUCs

I am temporarily removing a confusing phrase in the "legacy section", which says the Marcos administration's establishment of 47 SUCs "represents over 40% of all the existing 112 state colleges and universities"<ref>{{cite report|url=http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/temp/10-03/home/State%20Universities%20and%20Colleges%20Statistical%20Bulletin.pdf|title=State Universities and Colleges Statistical Bulletin Academic Year 2013–2014|publisher=Philippine Commission on Higher Education|accessdate=July 22, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160202083646/http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/temp/10-03/home/State%20Universities%20and%20Colleges%20Statistical%20Bulletin.pdf|archive-date=2 February 2016}}</ref> in the country. I retained the part of the sentence that stated there were 47 SUCs established, removing only the part that talks about its percentage relative to all existing Philippine SUCs. This is to address the "failed verification" tag on that line (the statistic is not specified in the source), and also to address a time issue since the number of Philippine SUCs changes over time.

At the same time, I am adding information about the Marcos administration being able to construct more schoolbuildings than the administration before it. So I am also expanding the title of the section from "State Universities and Colleges" to "Education". - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Honoris Causa"

Hi. Seeking input here before I move anything, but if I understand correctly, an honoris causa degree (here, Doctor of Laws, honoris causa) counts as an honor, not as education. In fact, there's an honoris causa in the Recognition section right now. Mr. Marcos is not considered an alumnus of Thammasat University, is he? By the same logic I don't think he counts as an Alum of CPU, either. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes honorary degrees are recognition and therefore should not count as education.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I should probably ping @Americana22ount: and @JohnFromPinckney: for comments, then. - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That's Wikipedia: I'm always learning things here. I'd never heard of honoris causa before, so had no idea what it is. In any case, you don't need my input, as all I did there was try to straighten out the ref citation. And although they've since added a photo of the award ceremony, @Americana22ount: still hasn't added the missing page number for the reference.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing could be moved (or even deleted). The weird thing is the (unsourced) mention of an honorary LL.D. from Thammasat University less than a year after his CPU one. How many schools gave him this "recognition"? Are they as remarkable as his many military medals? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @JohnFromPinckney:! An honorary degree is pretty notable if you're, say, a businessman or mid-tier actor. For the head of a major state, though (or if you're at Bill Gates or even Quentin Tarantino's level...) it's pretty run of the mill, especially if the educational institution is in your own country. Hm. Maybe at the same level as the key to a city, rather than a Military decoration? Or maybe a minor decoration. I think I'll change it soon enough, if I get a break from work. But it affects more than this page because @Americana22ount: has written this fact in multiple pages, and I want to make sure he gets his chance to give input. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

My comparison with medals comes from Marcos being famous for fabricating or coercing his military decorations. I'm wondering how spontaneous and meaningful his honorary doctorates would be beyond the let's-honor-the-head-of-state tradition. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I think it hardly matters. There are probably a lot more honorary degrees for Marcos out there... I just feel it wouldn't be worth the while go searching for them. If anything, it's of greater value to the school to be associated with the President than it is for a President to receive an honorary degree. But I'm not sure if that sense of (non)value already counts as a matter of opinion. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Marcos' reactions to the protests" section under First Quarter Storm

The section "Marcos' reactions to the protests" under "First Quarter storm" has no actual sources. The ref name says "philippinediaryproject", and then there are cleanup templates warning that this is a primary source. But the actual reference isn't anywhere. Add to that the fact that the section has had an "unbalanced" for a year and a half now. I am removing the section but putting its content here as per WP:Preserve.

====Marcos' reactions to the protests==== {{Unbalanced|section|date=November 2018}} In Marcos's diary, he wrote that the whole crisis has been utilized by communism to create a revolutionary situation.<ref name="philippinediaryproject.wordpress.com"/>{{Primary source inline|date=November 2018}}<ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{Primary source inline|date=November 2018}} He lamented that the powerful Lopez family blamed him in their newspapers for the riots thus raising the ire of demonstrators. He mentioned that he was informed by his mother of a planned assassination paid for by the powerful oligarch, [[Eugenio Lopez Sr.]] (Iñing Lopez).<ref name="philippinediaryproject.wordpress.com"/>{{Primary source inline|date=November 2018}}<ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{Primary source inline|date=November 2018}} He narrated how he dissuaded his supporters from the Northern Philippines in infiltrating the demonstration in Manila and inflicting harm on the protesters, and how he showed to the UP professors that the Collegian was carrying the communist party articles and that he was disappointed in the faculty of his ''[[alma mater]]'' for becoming a spawning ground of communism. He also added that he asked Ernesto Rufino, Vicente Rufino, and [[Carlos Palanca]] to withdraw advertisements from ''The Manila Times'' which was openly supporting revolution and the communist cause, and they agreed to do so.<ref name="philippinediaryproject.wordpress.com"/>{{Primary source inline|date=November 2018}}<ref name="ReferenceB"/>{{Primary source inline|date=November 2018}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chieharumachi (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There is so much hate in this article

Wikipedia does not have an opinion like it is supposed to be. --Filipinayzd 15:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's just statement of facts, backed up by citation sources. -Object404 (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

HRVVMC (Roll of Victims) external link

Hello Object404 (and others). Thanks for your clarifying edit summary in your last reversion, in which you readded the EL Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commmision Roll of Victims. My problem was, after carefully studying the linked page, I could see absolutely no connection to Marcos or even the Philippines, except for the almost coincidental fact that the commision's office is apparently in Quezon City.

Following the link you added, I did not realize that I was looking at some sub-page of the site. The website isn't done very well, the top menu is kind of messed up, and it's not immediately clear what one is looking at. I suppose when there's a museum building, the Roll of Victims won't need any introduction, because visitors will know what building they're in, and why. But that one web page is too quiet about what the point of the page is. I see there's also an "About" page which itself is good about explaining what it's all about. It'd help if they had "Philippines" or something in their logo or upper nav bar, but they don't.

Perhaps it would be better to link, instead of the Roll of Victims), to the Home page, where it at least says that the "Freedom Memorial Museum is dedicated to honor the [people] who struggled ... during the 1972-1986 martial law era in the Philippines"? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It's common knowledge that 1972-1986 (explicitly stated on the page) was the period of the Marcos Martial Law dicatorship, so it wasn't explicitly stated that it was Martial Law during the period covered by the victim list. I think the Victims Roll deserves as an important resource, but you may be right, it might be better to link to the front page of the site rather than the inner page. -Object404 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Have I lost my mind? (Just asking; it's entirely possible.) Did the Roll page just change in the last couple of days? I swear I never saw that text at the top and the long explanation about point allocation. All I remember seeing (back when I was younger, like, on Tuesday) was a list of names and places. Was the rest always there? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps browser or loading glitch? I seem to remember the text being there when I first added the link to external sources... -Object404 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then; probably really a human cognition glitch. I think my brain is shrinking. Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass reversion by User:Object404, and several serious issues in the page

User:Object404 has done an undiscussed massive reversion of several important changes in the article. The article has too many issues, most of which were not even tagged so as to make the article appear like nothing is wrong.

The article is too focused on certain incidents and intricate details that create an unbalance. There is no need to include in detail the names of each tortured victim, as a subarticle dedicated for that matter already exists, and a section hatnote already added. Also, details on the lengthy section Masagana 99 already exists in its related main article, again with a section hatnote already included. The section should be summarized.

Reliability of sources

The books "Tortyur" and "Marcos Martial Law: Never Again", which were previously tagged, are questionable due to their non-reputable publishers. Contentious claims warrant reputable sources.

"Tortyur" by Xiao Chua was published in Academia and Semantic Scholar, which are mere platforms for sharing research papers. It was added in Goodreads, without any book publisher provided. This violates either or both Wikipedia:No original research or WP:SELFPUBLISH.

"Marcos Martial Law: Never Again" by Raissa Espinosa-Robles" has been published by Filipinos for A Better Philippines, Inc. (2016). Virtually nothing is known about that publisher. In fact, "Marcos Martial Law: Never Again" seems to be the only book they have published, and it was done in such a recent time only 4 years ago in 2016. Moreover, content on that book's Facebook page is severely lopsided, with several weasel words in many posts. An excerpt post on December 7, 2018 by the operator/owner of that book's Facebook page shows this text: "Marcos and Meldy in Honolulu after they were chased out of the Philippines. This is what a #douchetator looks like when he loses power: deflated. Pathetic. And his plundering wife - blowsy and frumpy". Propaganda such as these clearly this mars the reliability of this book.

Additionally, the book of Ninoy Aquino "Testament from a Prison Cell: Benigno S. Aquino Jr.," cannot be used as source for claims as it is published by "Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. Foundation, 1984", making it a self-published source. In fact, it is the only source for most of the claims of several sections. Exceptional claims require multiple exceptional sources.

It would help if other reliable sources can corroborate those claims cited by these books, otherwise, the section and inline tags previously added to those claims should be restored.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, 'Tortyur' has been published in the book "For Democracy & Human Rights, Rekindling Lessons from Martial Law & People Power Revolt" by Friedrich Ebert Foundation in 2012. Just because the paper is available on those 2 online resources you linked doesn't mean it only appears there. So it is a valid WP:RS and is not self-published.

On "Marcos Martial Law: Never Again", so what of it if it's published by a lesser-known publisher? That doesn't make it WP:SELFPUBLISH and so what if it was published 4 years ago? Are you saying that "new" books are not WP:RSes? As per our discussion at your talk page, so what if a book does not have a proper website and just has a Facebook page? There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of books that have no websites. So what of it? And what do you mean by "lopsided" on the Facebook page? That it's critical of Marcos? What's wrong with that? Marcos stole billions in 1986 dollars from the Philippines, had thousands of people tortured and killed and caused enormous suffering and numerous atrocities on the Filipino people, what do you expect, praises? As for mockery of the Marcoses on the Facebook page, it's a time-honored tradition used to fight dictators and despots. So what of it? Have you even read the book? It is one of the best-written books about the Marcoses and well-researched at that, full of citations. The book is not the Facebook page and stands alone. It is an award-winning book (2017 National Book Award for non-fiction), and written in a scholarly manner at that.

As for the "Testament from a Prison Cell: Benigno S. Aquino Jr.," can you 1) list down which of the cited claims are extraordinary? 2) How can it be self-published when the man was already dead when it was published if it was 1984? So what if a foundation named after him published it? Cambridge English Dictionary: "SELF-PUBLISH: to arrange and pay for your own book to be published, rather than having it done by a publisher". Clearly Ninoy Aquino did not arrange and pay for his own book to be published. -Object404 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"The article is too focused on intricate details" -> Look up the meaning of the term encyclopedic as Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia:

* "covering a large range of knowledge, often in great detail" -Cambridge English Dictionary

* "COMPREHENSIVE", synonyms: "all-embracing, compendious, complete, comprehensive, cover-all, thorough, exhaustive" -Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"There is no need to include in detail the names of each tortured victim" -> Ah but there is. These people existed. They are more than mere statistics and names, and Marcos should be remembered for what he did to them. You're whitewashing Marcos's legacy by de-linking these names from him. These people need to be remembered and what Marcos did needs to be remembered by the world and the Philippines, in this time of historical amnesia. -Object404 (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sanglahi86 and Object404. Thank you both for beginning a discussion about the reliability of the sources mentioned above. It's early in the discussion, but I think what it has made clear so far is that given the contientiousness of the subject, talk pages are a better place for hashing out issues - as opposed to edit summaries, which is what we've been doing until now. The conversation is heated right now, but I feel moving the discussion here is a good step. For now, my initial contribution to this discussion is to appeal to WP:Preserve. Specifically, to ask that should we feel there is an absolute need to delete contentious content, the content in question at least be moved to the talk page. This way, we can at least have a place where we can discuss the content and references in question. I do agree that as of today, some sections in the article are too long; so at some point we're going to have to collaborate to compress it without succumbing to WP:FALSEBALANCE. So once again, thanks to both editors for being willing to discourse here. Yours, Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I am asking the same thing about the neutrality of this article, I am now going to list this article on the noticeboard regarding this particular issue. I hope this issue gets resolved. PyroFloe (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on improvements to the lede per the WP:BRD process

Since this is a very controversial subject, any large changes, especially on the MOS:LEAD section, should first be discussed in the talk page. So per the bold, revert, discuss process, I have (step 2) reverted the (step 1) WP:BOLD changes to the lead section, and (step 3) we should discuss changes or improvements here on the talk page and follow the MOS:LEADBIO guidelines. Some possible major points for discussion: (1) what exactly goes into the lead/1st paragraph and also the 1st sentence? and (2) how long should the lead be in number of paragraphs? —seav (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia guidelines on MOS:OPENPARABIO, the opening paragraph of a person should be in NEUTRAL form by NEUTRALLY describing the person. Kleptocrat is not a job, its a description, you do not see other notable corrupt leaders with "kleptocrat" on their opening paragraphs, especially Suharto wherein User:Object404 tried to add in "kleptocrat" even though he didn't seek concensus on a nominated good article. The amount petitions that Object404 ignored here is dodging the real integrity of the article. This article was listed as a C-class article, the 2nd lowest possible rating especially for a controversial leader. Suharto, Hitler, and Stalin doesn't start with "kleptocrat" or "autocrat" on the first sentence, and those were nominated as good articles.

1.) What goes in: MOS:LEAD BIO says that relevant material should neither be suppressed NOR overwhelm the article, just looking at the first paragraph is already OVERWHELMING enough for the reader, two mentions of corruption already in one sentence? Also, why is it that my edits get reverted while User:Object404's edits get to be established as the maik driving force of the article. Multiple talk pages are criticizing this user of mass reversion without concensus, and he is just saying "facts are facts" but I think the "facts" should either be merged into one article talking about the issue with just brief mentions of it in this BIOGRAPHY.

2.) How long? The length of the lead section is not the problem, the problem is the length of the WHOLE article. The article spans a whopping 94 headings/subheadings/sub-subheadings. A good article of a controversial person only lists about 20, why is this article 4 times as long? The whole article only revolves around his wrongs and not some of his notable "rights". Plus some of User:Object404's "references" only briefly mentions the description, every SENTENCE gets cut up by a clutter of over referencing, we must remove excessive or irrelevant citations that only mentions the sentence reflected on this article ONCE. Repetition is a sign of over cluttering and over citations, in the expense of NEUTRALITY.

In my defense, why does User: Object404 get to revert helpful edits without concensus? Let me remind you that this article is rated C-class, someone this controversial is critically needed to be resolved. I'm not into edit wars so diplomacy should be in play here. Proper concernsus should be observed for ALL editors here in this encyclopedia we are trying to build. PyroFloe (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say in Wikipedia rules that opening sentences MUST consist solely of jobs? Jeffrey Epstein's opening sentence states that he is a convicted sex offender, which he is. It is factual and neutral, much like how it is factual and neutral to state that Ferdinand Marcos is a kleptocrat. It's funny that you should talk about consensus when you stated "Please do not remove or add substantial stuff without proper concensus" at the top, and then suddenly started deleting and altering large swathes of article text without consensus. So what's that, it doesn't apply to you? -Object404 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As for good articles, Seung-Hui Cho (good article class) is stated to be a mass-murderer in his opening sentence. Terry Peder Rasmussen, good article as well, is stated to be a serial killer. Ted Bundy (good article) is stated to be an American serial killer who "kidnapped, raped, and murdered" in his opening sentence. -Object404 (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok then, I dare you to put "autocrat" on the dictators articles as you said back in the noticeboard. Please put them to prove your point. Put autocrat on Hitler and Stalin then we can see about putting "-crat" in the lead section. Getting an expert to check this article will help us see the badly written parts. I'm sorry for seeming aggressive towards you, I have a tendency to argue especially with controversial topics. PyroFloe (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the point? I put kleptocrat on Suharto but you reverted it. -Object404 (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Issues with the article compilation

Too many dividing sections (Big file size)

This article has a whopping 94 sections/subsections/sub-subsections that is dividing up information. That's a bit too much isn't it? Merging and removing subheadings is a must for the article to be readable in one sitting. We must divide the topics onto new articles or merge them with existing ones rather than stuffing it up on one article.

Neutrality and Reliability

Most references are reliable, however we must observe neutrality in writing in sentences and paragraphs being cited. The person is really controversial, rewriting this to satisfy everyone is next to impossible. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, the minority viewpoint can be mentioned but should not be the same weight as the majority viewpoint. Bias is not welcome, even Hitler's article is more neutrally written than this. "As long as it follows both standard editing procedure concerning persons as well as balanced points-of-view and clean wiki-writing, it should be of acceptable quality for the top of the article. If it pleases anyone, the "dictator" part can stay, as it was de jure, pursuant to General Order no. 1, s. 1972."

Editing important changes without concensus

Please do not remove or add substantial stuff without proper concensus, it just adds to the problem that is already persisting. "The article is too focused on certain incidents and intricate details that create an unbalance. There is no need to include in detail the names of each tortured victim, as a subarticle dedicated for that matter already exists, and a section hatnote already added. Also, details on the lengthy section Masagana 99 already exists in its related main article, again with a section hatnote already included. The section should be summarized." In my opinion, we must summarize paragraphs that already have their own pages. The lead section that will come up on google searches should cope in a really brief summary of the whole currently 94 section divided article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PyroFloe (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Masagana 99 is there because it is often touted as a Marcos achievement, isn't it? If only in its first few years. If I had a penny Marcos loyalists say "why don't you talk about things like Masagana 99?," I'd be... well, richer. Anyway. I think the key step forward is to get down to specifics. Masagana 99 is as good a place to start, I think, rather than the lede which is much more contentious. But my question: what specific changes are needed there? If we identify those, then I submit we may get more and better work done than if we continue to discuss in general terms. (And if we start with the lede, yeah, we'll end up beginning by talking in general terms and we won't get anywhere. Again.) - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

On another note, I don't actually see that many weasel words, if we follow the definition I recall from Wiki policy. If anything the article seems to take pains to contextualize the sourcing of the information. I submit that it would be more helpful if the "weasel words" referred to in the banner/tag would be identified in-line instead? Or perhaps the problem isn't "weasel words" per se but rather value-laden terminology? One would be a very different discussion from the other, I think. So yeah, I suggest in-line tagging instead of the big "weasel word" banner. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, about the weasel words tag. If there is no listing of specific instances of weasel words within the next 10 days here in the talk page as proof, I think we should remove the weasel words tag. -Object404 (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Over a month has passed. I have removed the tag since there are no objections. -Object404 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Article Tag: This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.

Please state the specific sections in which the article states personal feelings or original arguments about the topic. If there are no objections, will remove the tag in 10 days. -Object404 (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree. That problem isn't true of most of the article. The problem is more that it is too long, which means there are different writing styles in different parts. If the tag is returned, it should be in the relevant section, not up there covering the whole article. - MistahPeemayer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

10 days have passed and there were no objections. Tag removed. -Object404 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing the section "Economic controversies"

I respectfully suggest that the section "Economic controversies" be removed. Most of its content is duplicated in other places in the article. The other things can be distributed to other sections. The section is unnecessary, and out of place. - MistahPeemayer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'm going to start working on this, maybe next week. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think it still needs its own section/subsection since the economy was quite controversial during the Marcos regime. The tanking economy towards the end of his regime led to his downfall too, and until now the effects of Marcos's bad economic policies (overborrowing, etc) have an effect on the Philippine economy. -Object404 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

With respect, that entire section of "economic performance" is about controversies, because Marcos' economic management was nothing if not controversial. This is one of the few sections that are actually redundant (as the "too many headings" tag accuses) because everything here is discussed or should be discussed of some other section. The only thing this section adds is the word "controversy." Maybe the solution is to turn this into an overview or section lead? But I won't take action, sir/madam unless this is cleared up. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Bias

Is this article biased? Just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyawkyaw08 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Biased in what way? The issue of neutrality was raised before, but bias/non-neutrality was not proven at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -Object404 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of raising the ad hominem fallacy, the new user that posted the above comment was soon blocked as a vandalism-only account (see contribs). —seav (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Article Neutrality Dispute

The Neutrality of this article is being disputed at the NPOV noticeboard.

See the discussion here: [1].

-Object404 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The non-neutrality of the article was not proven at the NPOV noticeboard. As such I am removing the tag. -Object404 (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

how can we see it , those links dont show marcos! but i am glad for use of kleptocrat - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.224.34 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Historical revisionists in the community often invoke “neutrality,” one of the pillars of Wikipedia, to defend their positions, claiming their views are neutral." -Object404 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

CITEKILL

Lead suffers from excessive WP:OVERKILL issues when it comes to references. I agree that this topic can be highly controversial and that it invites a lot of trolls who clearly are not here to build an encyclopedia but be careful with balancing how many references to cite in the lead section and still staying obedient to MOS and CITEKILL policies. Thanks! shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There are just 3 citations per item, which falls within the acceptable range for WP:OVERKILL. -Object404 (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

The article currently contains an undefined refname, The reference was removed in this edit while the refname was still in use.

The first instance of:
<ref name="marcosMartialLawNeverAgain" />

with the following:
<ref name="marcosMartialLawNeverAgain">{{cite book|last1=Robles|first1=Raissa|title=Marcos Martial Law: Never Again|date=2016|publisher=Filipinos for a Better Philippines, Inc.|location=[[Quezon City]]|isbn=978-621-95443-1-3|url=https://www.facebook.com/MarcosMartialLawNeverAgain/}}</ref>

Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Or as it's a facebook link, you could remove the 22 instance and replace with CN tags. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been fixed. The Facebook link here is fine since it's an official page for the reference in question. That said, this should transition to using page references and listing the source once. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 20:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Lessen the tone towards Marcos

Ok, so every time I look at this page, all I see are "kleptocrat", "dictator", "evil", and all that stuff. I wanna at least see some more of the good stuff he did, like this page is 15% "good stuff Marcos did", 85% "he's evil". Just suggesting this, 'cuz history is always re-written by the victors, and the victors won EDSA, so they must've changed history to think Marcos was a bad person, while in reality, he did a lot of things to help improve the Philippines. I don't get how you can call this "neutral" (no offense though). So please, add some more positive things to Marcos. Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

They did not change history. Marcos did the things he did and they are well documented. He crippled the Philippine economy and oversaw widespread atrocities during his regime. "Philippine poverty, on the other hand, increased during the Marcos years, rising from 41% poverty incidence around the time Marcos took the Presidency in the 1960s to around 59% by the time he was kicked out by a popular people-power revolution in the 1980s. And during this time, as much of the country was impoverished, the country’s external debt grew by an annual average rate of 25% from 1970 to 1981." - Ateneo School of Government Dean Ronald Mendoza Please read the Wikipedia policy WP:FALSEBALANCE because what you are stating here may be that. If you want more positive things about Marcos in the article, then find WP:RS (Wikipedia reliable sources) to back them up, make sure they are not WP:FRINGE (Fringe Theories). -Object404 (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

You say they did not change history. Well, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile himself even said in an interview that "History was totally distorted to favor one group." Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHbtQ6tobHk -Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Enrile is the one trying to change history and revise it. He lied multiple times in that video series you linked. Read these articles disproving his claims:

* 8 things Juan Ponce Enrile, Bongbong Marcos got wrong about martial law (CNN Philippines)

* LIST: False claims of Juan Ponce Enrile on Martial Law (Rappler)

-Object404 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting tired of this. You do you, and I do me, simple. No more of this, end of conversation, we both respect our opinions. Case closed. Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not when we're talking about lies/Historical Negationism vs facts/truth-telling. -Object404 (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bro, I literally put up an argument in a new section and they just reverted it. I even added sources to it. Here's a link to Marcos' achievements: https://rommelsibay.wordpress.com/iv-marcos-deserted-achievements/. Also, how about we say Marcos started off super strong, but gradually became bad? We can compromise on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. With respect, it was during Marcos's first term as president that he established business monopolies, cultivated his relationship with his cronies, and took out massive foreign loans. Crisantom (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So he wasn't all that bad. I also wanna specifically mention that literacy rates rose during the 1980s. After that, it just kept going up and down until 2003, when it started to rise again. In 1980, literacy rates were at 83%. By the end of Marcos' presidency, literacy rates were at 92%.

On the contrary, actions taken during his first term, combined with his reorganization of security forces, set the foundation for intensified repression and worsening inflation, leading to more social unrest. Regarding the country's literacy from the 1980s onwards, that data from the Unesco Institute for Statistics in fact show that the Philippines lagged behind its neighbors while Marcos was in office.Crisantom (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

So we can compromise on Marcos starting off as the Philippines' best president, but he gradually went bad. We can compromise on that? Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We cannot. First of all, "best" is a peacock word that violates WP:NPOV. Second, the "positive" statistics need to be discussed with a proper context. You cannot cherrypick. And what you are suggesting is cherrypicking. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That said, there are passages of the first term section which discuss these positive gains. If you like, you can try to expand those. That is not a "compromise," that is appropriate addition of data. So if your sources are reliable, nobody is stopping you. But just remember that they also need to provide a context of the long term impact those achievements had. The problem is if you begin to editorialize, using words like "best" and "good", which are value-laden and non-neutral.- MistahPeemayer (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Enrile being a former minister serving under Marcos is an unreliable source as he is potentially biased to say good things about his former boss. It's like asking a child to vouch for their parents' legacy, which of course they will. Tagaaplaya (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself provided legitimate primary sources are used such as scholarly works, journal articles, news reports (like by Reuters, AP, AFP and international news agencies for minimal bias), etc. We cannot write the extra good things you seek if legitimate sources for them do not exist. History is not written by victors especially politicians (have you read a history book authored by any EDSA politician?) but by academic historians and researchers (here and abroad) based on government documents, published news reports, court rulings and other evidences which are then analyzed for authenticity and accuracy (akin to the scientific method). Tagaaplaya (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely No Bias in this Wikipedia Page.

This page is the epitome of justice and truth, obviously written only for the purpose of education and only education, not even a sliver of hatred and disgust towards the late President Dictator Marcos. Hence I move that we achieve this level of truthfulness with other pages. Taking Cory Aquino's page for example, we might as well add the words "murderer," "kleptocrat," "necropolitician," and "hypocrite." Of course, we will include credible sources regarding the numerous massacres under her administration (only one is mentioned on her page) and the Aquino—Cojuangco political dynasty.Jarlcung (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You also gotta add the good stuff he did, like improving infrastructure an doing his best to make the Philippine peso equivalent to the US dollar, and build the Philippines' first power plant (which never went into service because of Cory's (no offense) policies of what I call "De-Marcosization"). -Ilikefeeshlol (talk) 9:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"doing his best to make the Philippine peso equivalent to the US dollar" -> Do you have a reliable source citation for this? Calling a spade a spade, this is just propaganda. -Object404 (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If so, he was absolutely horrific at his job. When Marcos came into power in 1965, it was US$1:PHP3.91. By the time he was ousted in 1986, it dropped to US$1:PHP20.46 -- it got worse by 423%. -Object404 (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHbtQ6tobHk and you'll see why Marcos was actually the greatest president in Philippine history. The guy being interviewed was a leader of EDSA. Ilikefeeshlol1234321 (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Enrile lied multiple times in that video series. Read these articles disproving his claims:

* 8 things Juan Ponce Enrile, Bongbong Marcos got wrong about martial law (CNN Philippines)

* LIST: False claims of Juan Ponce Enrile on Martial Law (Rappler)

-Object404 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Save us and yourself the trouble by editing it yourself (which you are more than welcome to do) provided reliable sources are cited. Tagaaplaya (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality and length

The article in general is just in a really bad state with it being too long for Wikipedia standards, and at least kind of has a skewered bias with the tone and such. Although I personally dislike Marcos, just from my view the article is not neutral at all. I would say to lessen the length of the article, and rewrite it to a GA standard like Adolf Hitler. Hitler's article details his evil acts while still staying in an encyclopedic tone; I believe the same is 100% possible for Ferdinand Marcos. shanghai.^{talk to me} 05:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

We've been over this before. The non-neutrality of the article was not proven at the NPOV noticeboard. As such I am removing the tag. -Object404 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"Historical revisionists in the community often invoke “neutrality,” one of the pillars of Wikipedia, to defend their positions, claiming their views are neutral." -Object404 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Object404: Please do not make personal attacks. I'm not a "historical revisionist", because I do not even support Marcos whatsoever, so I am coming at this from a purely uninvolved perspective; the tone of the language used in the article is so bad that even articles like Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are more neutrally written than Ferdinand Marcos. WP:SOAPBOX shanghai.^{talk to me} 15:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, that NPOV noticeboard entry you linked? There looks to be no consensus reached and it looked just like a dispute between editors. Nor does any of the talk page show RfCs that have a status-quo consensus. You cannot remove the tag until neutrality conditions are met. shanghai.^{talk to me} 15:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The article is so long it's completely unreadable. Its structure is also unhelpful. Both these issues make the formulation actually counter-productive. A start might be splitting off the "Legacy" section into a separate article, to at least make it more manageable to cut, though given that a lot of the "Legacy" section isn't about his legacy and rather is about things during his rule it needs to be restructured altogether. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be trimmed of nearly 3/4 of the length. The legacy section is a huge list of massacres, murders and human rights violations which can be better summarized into paragraphs. Seloloving (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the discussion seems to be around trimming things, I'm here to remind both of you (ProcrastinatingReader and Seloloving) that given how contentious this article is, trimming anything from the article should be done so after thorough discussion and reaching of consensus. While trimming can be warranted should there be consensus, it must be done so in a manner that doesn't diminish what was removed, especially because it seems like the recent spate of removals seems to have been done with a chainsaw rather than a scalpel. Commonly-agreed to facts about Ferdinand Marcos, his presidency and his legacy should never be in dispute, and it makes a lot of sense that they be explained here if they can't be better explained elsewhere --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it was very selective trimming and/or modification. That having been said, I think any improvement is probably a hopeless endeavour, which is quite a shame. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Skimming through the archives, it is somewhat amusing there are several pages full of editors with the same concerns (eg Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 5), and the same editors showing up to help conversation dissipate. It's very much a case of Levivich's writing here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would disagree that improvement is hopeless; on the contrary, improvements can be made and are warranted. But again, given the contentious nature of the subject in question, it's important that these improvements come about because there is broad agreement on how things should be changed, and are not merely imposed top-down by individual editors. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

and are not merely imposed top-down by individual editors I would suggest you read the archives, or the XTools for the authorship of this article. When a dozen editors (at different time periods) oppose a change, and the same editor supports it each time and it ends in a 1-1 deadlock, it's very hard to say there is broad agreement for what the status quo is. Indeed, it's better described as change being hopeless. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You seem to miss my point. I don't know if you're Filipino and/or are living in the Philippines, but the topic is clearly controversial. There's a reason why this topic appears in WP:GCONT, and any edits will attract attention as a result of that. I understand that the article is hard to read and needs to be cleaned up, and that is not in dispute here; what is in dispute is the best approach to do so since we actually do a disservice to people reading this article when we simply remove information without either putting it somewhere where it can be expanded upon, or when parts are rewritten without faithfully adhering to what was removed. There's a lot of ways to condense information into things that are both neutral and impactful, but I would much rather give people more information than less. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

They already are present in the more appropriate article. For example, the content in this removal already exists at Bongbong_Marcos#2012_human_rights_violation_denial, which is the appropriate place for the content to be held, but you reverted a removal so now a quotation by someone else in 2012 has an entire sub-section in the biography of a person who died in 1989... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I expanded the section so that it's more appropriately a sub-section now. -Object404 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Due respect to all fellow editors. When I look at this page and look at the academic literature about Marcos, I have a minor issues but find it mostly neutral. The big problem here is length. The problem is that this article is actually both about Ferdinand Marcos and about The Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos (currently a redirect to History of the Philippines (1965–1986)). This is why the page is so cramped. Compare it to articles like George W. Bush and Presidency of George W. Bush. Article split would be helpful to History of the Philippines (1965–1986) too. It would stop having to be a stand-in for The Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos. The long text of the Legacy section obviously belongs in Wikipedia, but should be in the Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos article, not here. Short mentions of the events covered in that section (human rights violations, stolen wealth, debt, economic crashes, etc) should then be incorporated in the proper places within Marcos' Biographical timeline.- MistahPeemayer (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I kind of disagree, compared to articles like Adolf Hitler, Marcos' lede is a lot less neutral in it's tone and context. I think that it can be fixed without whitewashing his various proven corrupt acts, so I think there's definitely a middle ground here. Marcos' lede in my opinion, should be rewritten to sound more like [[Adolf Hitler]'s lede. shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, claiming something is non-neutral doesn't mean it needs to be in a positive tone. The article does read unbalanced, but the bigger problem is the sheer length and poor structure which really just deprives readers of encyclopaedic value. Contra Sky Harbor, more words isn't necessarily an improvement for the reader, especially if it means they don't read any of it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hitler's lede readily talked about genocide (Holocaust) on the very first paragraph and then literally describe him as "the embodiment of modern political evil" but Marcos's is lot less neutral? I strongly disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagaaplaya (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Tagaaplaya (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that the article runs a bit too long. However, the issue of neutrality may be a bit more delicate in the Philippine context. The atrocities of Nazi Germany is well-documented and mostly uncontested. There are even laws against Holocaust denialism. However, in the case of Marcos, there is an active effort by the surviving members of his family to whitewash the atrocities and excesses of his administration. While in a vacuum, achieving neutrality on this article and making it an encyclopedic read would be the natural thing to do, it might heavily influence the political situation in the Philippines. Perhaps there can be a solution to this without the outright removal or revision of huge portions of the article. ScalaAdCaelum (talk) 1:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've always been confused by this approach. I can't speak for how other people digest text, but when I look at it as a reader I think two things: 1) it reads non-neutral, thus none of it can be trusted as a fair representation of facts, so I have to find a different resource-of-first-instance; 2) it is too long and information is poorly organised, so I can't be bothered to really read any of it. If the purpose is to provide facts to avoid whitewashing by members of his family, then writing an article like this doesn't help IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The recents edit to make the lede more "neutral" has only made the article more wordy and lengthy (which is a problem itself). It did provide more space for more references though. Tagaaplaya (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The section on the Marcos legacy is lengthy enough to warrant its own article. Would that be permissible, provided it is linked to this Ferdinand Marcos article? Separate articles can also be created for his first two terms as President, provided they are connected with each other and his eventual declaration of Martial Law. In this main article, the mentioned sections can be greatly shortened. I can only speak about the length since, as I've said, the issue of neutrality is a bit more complicated, given how Filipinos consume Wikipedia articles. ScalaAdCaelum (talk) 2:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Tagaaplaya (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I proposed a logical nomenclature for the split, a few comments back. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Vienna Ce Marcos Windmills panatic

is this what you are looking for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4451:872D:6F00:D86B:4C7:7880:F6EA (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Please remove the Kleptocrat! 122.54.53.26 (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Legal cases

Rudy Giuliani's name is misspelled twice in this section.

73.254.192.168 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Chlod (say hi!) 02:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

‎Mention of Guinness World Record on lead

Moved from Special:PageHistory/Ferdinand Marcos

Such an important figure in history should not have a piece of pop-politics more befitting infotainment at the end of his introduction. The factual descriptions in the introduction speak better to his legacy without the Guinness piece than with it. If you would like we can move this discussion to the talk page. -- Holidayruin (talk) in edit summary (1054304538) Chlod (say hi!) 08:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see how this is any different from the previous "factual descriptions" in the lead. Perhaps were it not for the odd positioning of the statement, it would have rather fit well right after the "The PCGG also maintained that the Marcos family enjoyed a decadent lifestyle, taking away billions of dollars from the Philippines between 1965 and 1986." quote. We're not pulling data out of thin air here: references 503, 504, 505, and 507 (all included here for brevity) back the statement up perfectly in the § Honors section of the article. Achievements of Guinness World Records are statements of fact: they are used in many article leads as a sign of both notability and magnitude (see Sultan Kösen, Kimani Maruge, Lambert Glacier) and for good reason; it's not called a "world record" without it being the global indicator of excellence (or in this case, highest quantity). Having that statement in the lead benefits the reader by providing both a sense of scale that is properly sourced and not mere trivial details (as the Guinness World Record is an internationally-recognized award after all). The recognizability of the award, paired with the quantity of the money stolen that sparked it and the indication of its magnitude, perfectly demonstrates its importance to the topic — a guideline-based argument to having it kept in the lead, which is definitely better than belittling the content (by calling it "pop-politics" despite it being a piece of fact since 1989, and "infotainment" despite it being a rather neutral statement itself) as an excuse to bypass WP:BRD.

References

Certainly more reliably-sourced than saying that he stole more than the top 10 costliest Philippine typhoons combined, which is still correct, as that totals up to US$6.15 billion compared to Marcos' estimated (benefit-of-the-doubt lower average) of US$11.6 billion (inflation-adjusted). Chlod (say hi!) 08:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I take umbrage with the fact that the "World Record" is attempting to achieve a political purpose, even if that purpose (decrying the Marcos regime) is correct. It comes off to me as editorializing, and I do not see the Marcos record in the same vein as the other records you cited. I find editorial opinions of Guinness wholly unnecessary given that the introduction is entirely properly sourced and states in great factual detail the true breadth of the government theft.

Then, let's say that the sentence should be removed because it's a statement that I think is actually in dispute. Even if we were to discount ideas of inflation and buying power over the course of history, which would put tons of kings and queens over time into contention as having stole the most from their people, there are other contenders that are blankly ignored. There is Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan (who used the country's finances to build a giant gold statue of himself that always turns to face the sun), Kings of Thailand in the modern day such as Rama IX (although saying that he stole from the nation still has a high chance of getting someone excoriated by native Thai people), or even Vladimir Putin (who some have called the current richest man in the world at $200 billion due to his immediate control over governmental and oligarchic finances as to benefit himself). Holidayruin (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Holidayruin: I can't see what could be causing any kind of "dispute" you're talking about here. The Neutrality Monument's page puts the statue's cost at US$12 million (0.1% of the Marcos figure), and both Rama IX and Putin don't have reliable sources indicating the amount of government funds they've embezzled, something that is not the case for Marcos. The wild underestimation being made here regarding the stolen funds is even more evidence that there needs to be some scale or comparison that isn't just original research. Chlod (say hi!) 12:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chlod: Please read the Wikipedia pages for the names mentioned. Niyazov is multi-billions, similar to Marcos, Rama IX is tens of billions, more than Marcos but "theft" a difficult word to define, and the ideas behind the claim about Putin are totally true except ascertaining what is "his" wealth which is a matter of semantic opinion. There are more that were not mentioned as well. And again, while you denounce "original research" the Guinness piece is in my eyes editorializing and tantamount to "original research". Using Guinness as a source can you say, without a shadow of a doubt, that Marcos is the most kleptocratic leader in world history? Holidayruin (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Holidayruin: You're confusing the record for the amount of money stolen here. Guinness isn't being used to call Marcos a kleptocrat here — there's hundreds of other sources that can say that. There is one specific fact being said in the removed sentence: Marcos holds the world record for "Greatest robbery of a Government", or if you prefer to discredit that due what is in your eyes an "editorializing source" or because of its RSP listing as generally unreliable, he still holds the world record for "Largest-ever theft from a government", first presented in 1989, and is out of the scope of the RSP listing. Guinness is not being used as a source to back up the amount of money stolen, but rather used as a source for the fact that he has been awarded for it. The award and the amount of money stolen by Marcos that led up to the award are completely different and should (and is) cited using different sources. Chlod (say hi!) 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chlod: This 2004 report by an NGO, cited in the Wikipedia article for Kleptocracy, says that Suharto stole more from his government. Is this sentence that worth defending? Holidayruin (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, if you read the Guinness links you sourced, they are clearly citing the dollar amount as the record. Holidayruin (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I've actually been thinking of the Transparency International report for a while now, and I think it arguably should be included in the lead, but alongside the Guinness factlet, not replacing it. Something along the lines of "Marcos' theft/kleptocracy is known for being one of the world's biggest, with Transparency International citing it as the second xx...xx in 2004, and with the Guinness book of world records having indicated Ferdinand and Imelda holding the world record for "greatest theft of a government" since xx...xxx." The lead should recognize that the scale of the theft is recognized both by intergovernmental organizations / INGOs, and by popular culture. - Thundersub (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Holidayruin: It's not our place to decide whether or not Guinness improperly gave the award or not, Wikipedia is not a primary source. Like I said, we have to state the fact that Marcos holds that specific Guinness World Record, which was awarded by an internationally-recognized entity. Thundersub's argument for this ("lead should recognize that the scale...") is exactly what I was going for — and I even supported it my very first response to this thread. Chlod (say hi!) 02:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thundersub & Chlod, Why should we cite the opinion of Guinness World Records, a non-political science or -academic entity, in the introduction when there are plenty of good sources to use about a highly important historical figure? This all goes back to my original point, that citing Guinness cheapens the objective quality of the article, or at least its introduction. I can say, though, maybe it's worth mentioning later in the body of the article. There is no "In popular culture" section in this article (because it would be weird) but if it did exist the Guinness stuff would be a good fit there. Holidayruin (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Offtopic, WP:NOTFORUM. Chlod (say hi!) 06:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, this is definitely a tangent and not too related to our current discussion, but I'm annoyed with using Guinness World Records as a source on Marcos' excesses when Guinness has been used in modern times to help polish the images of dictators not unlike Marcos (12), such as the House of Saud of Saudi Arabia and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow of Turkmenistan. This cheapens their criticism of Marcos to me. Holidayruin (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Holidayruin: The same can be said for multiple news sources in the lead, including the Huffington Post, which is listed as unreliable in WP:RSP when it comes to politics articles. The HP isn't a political science or academic entity either. The writer isn't even part of HP staff. There is no rule or guideline that we're supposed to use only those sources online. Again: the sentence isn't to summarize his actions — that's already been done in the first sentence of the last paragraph — but it's supposed to provide a sense of scale to the reader, one that is provided by something they're very already aware of: a world record. You're entirely missing the point of inclusion here. Chlod (say hi!) 06:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Chlod You should know that the reasoning of "there is already unreliable sources used so might as well use a different unreliable source" is not a good idea. And I should have included news sources in addition to political science or academic sources. I'm not missing the point of the inclusion, I've stated the reasons why the world record is inaccurate, lacking real meaning, depreciating the value of the rest of the written work- by purporting to be an indisputable factual "world record." Holidayruin (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the Huffington Post article that you mention is in the introduction. Could you point me to it? If it is by a contributor and not a staff writer it should be removed. Holidayruin (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

My take: the essential thing here is the broad recognition (academic, governmental, intergovermental, popular) of the scale of the theft. So I still think: if there are multiple references, they should all be mentioned, using in as few words as possible. Guinness, to me, seems legit as a source, although yes, admittedly a bit corny. But if more formal sources (such as Transparency Int'l) say the same thing, I'm okay with merging those mentions into one sentence. What matters is that the broad recognition of the scale of the theft is mentioned. The fact is that the Marcos kleptocracy was one of the world's biggest thefts ever. And that should really be mentioned in the lead.- Thundersub (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thundersub In theory I may be alright with that. But how would that be executed? "Marcos' excesses have been recognized by institutions such as Transparency International, the current democratic Fifth Philippine Republic through the Presidential Commission on Good Government, and Guinness Book of World Records?" One of those things are not like the other. That's weird, unsavory juxtaposition to me. I don't think I like that particular sentence. Holidayruin (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be fine. There is nothing incongruous in mentioning "a piece of pop-politics," Guinness, in an article on Marcos. He is, after all, not only a political figure but also someone who is very much a part of popular culture. So mentioning how he figures in the popular imagination, vis-a-vis a Guinness world record, is justifiable. Crisantom (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Crisantom That would be more appropriate for an "In popular culture" section then, like Corazon Aquino#In popular culture. Not the introduction. Holidayruin (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nah, I agree with Chlod and Thundersub's points. It belongs in the lead for the thematic consistency. -Object404 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The stage musical included in the Corazon Aquino article can't compare with the Guinness record Marcos holds in terms of public awareness.

The record Marcos holds is relevant to world history, politics, and governance. It compares his robbery with others in world history, so it gives an idea of the magnitude of the robbery over time and across countries. The robbery and the world record loom large in the popular imagination (comparable to Imelda's "3,000 pairs of shoes"). The Guinness world record by Marcos is notable enough to be mentioned in stories by local and international news outlets and is significant enough to be mentioned in fact checks by local and international news agencies. I believe the world record is a perfect summation of the plunder Marcos committed and fits perfectly in the lead section. -Crisantom (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

To all, do what you want regarding this. This was an unexpectedly lively discussion. If anyone sees this discussion in the future days to come and wants to chime in feel free to do so. Holidayruin (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Holidayruin. The Guinness World Records is a popular culture thing, really, and they have no significance in granting politicians awards. Their award for a "Greatest Robbery of a Government" is no more lead-worthy than them awarding Trump with "The Most Controversial Recent President" or a US Supreme Court judge as "The Longest Written Opinion". It's irrelevant. Talk about the robbery, but the award shouldn't be in the lead, maybe the body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"Muslim massacres" and "Civilian massacres"

Since, as far as I can tell, most if not all of the Muslim victims are civilians, having 2 sections at the same level is misleading. One option I see is to make "Muslim massacres" a subsection of "Civilian massacres". Another is to swap them and rename "Civilian massacres" to "Other civilian massacres". I'm leaning toward the second, but not strongly enough to do that without discussing it first. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment - User:PauAmma's suggestion sounds good to me. - Thundersub (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless someone beats me to it or has arguments to the contrary or a third suggestion, I'l swap them and rename "Civilian massacres" per my second suggestion when I have a moment. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Full of Fake News, sources ra our trash media

Full of Fake News, sources ra our trash media 152.32.96.57 (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have reliable news sources that you think are better, feel free to list them here for discussion and evaluation. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Many Biased opinion from the Aquino puppets.

Saying He is corrupt is totally Biased and does not really now the truth about what happened during those era. 86.99.12.223 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see previous section and check WP:NPA. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Citations indicated on this wikipedia page does not support what was stated that are against the Marcoses

If you read the citations used, it is different from what is written in wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.195.193.173 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No example was provided to support this claim. Chlod (say hi!) 03:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Kleptocrat a Strong Word But Perception.

Marcos was a good man. The love of his country had made his downfall. He simply understand what it takes to be an independent nation. Most of the words used seem to be absurd. He love life more than ever. Brutality is not a principle of a wise man. 175.176.84.232 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that contradict the ones used in the Ill-gotten wealth section, feel free to list them. Otherwise, I think calling him a kleptocrat fits the facts and the definition of the word. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Fake accusation

Lol all written here was fake hes the best president in the ph 136.158.102.127 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Show reliable sources backing your claims. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Remove the kleptomania part most especially if you don't have the supreme court decision which is final and executatory from the Philippines. Marcos family most especially FEM doesn't still in the nation coffers it's due to the greed of corazon Aquino for there personal interest with the help of central intelligence agency or CIA to bring down a government that is love by the majority of the people.

Cia and EU don't meddle into our national elections stop colonizing us and invading is at all. Cutie9mla (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It looks to be very well sourced, and doesn't state that he was a kleptocrat in wikivoice, rather it says that many sources call him that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's the Supreme Court decision you seek, G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003. The Supreme Court said:

In the guise of reporting income using the cash method under Section 38 of the National Internal Revenue Code, FM made it appear that he had an extremely profitable legal practice before he became a President (FM being barred by law from practicing his law profession during his entire presidency) and that, incredibly, he was still receiving payments almost 20 years after. The only problem is that in his Balance Sheet attached to his 1965 ITR immediately preceeding his ascendancy to the presidency he did not show any Receivables from client at all, much less the P10,65-M that he decided to later recognize as income. There are no documents showing any withholding tax certificates. Likewise, there is nothing on record that will show any known Marcos client as he has no known law office. As previously stated, his networth was a mere P120,000.00 in December, 1965. The joint income tax returns of FM and Imelda cannot, therefore, conceal the skeletons of their kleptocracy Tagaaplaya (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

How come President FEM IS ONLY KNOW FOR corruptions without proof can anyone change that word ..

Can anyone change that being corrupt into a great leader 2A00:5400:E265:6D8B:B1F8:4B1E:C9E:AE4A (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not going to happen without reliable sources backing your request, just as for similar requests in the past 3 months. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for Extended Edit Protection

This wiki is subject to frequent changes as a result of disagreement between editors, I will be asking for assistance from the DRN to resolve differences about an issue, for the time being it might be necessary to increase the edit protection of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay.zero21 9911 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The page protection level with autoconfirmed seems fine as it is. It is user Jay.zero21 9911 edit warring despite multiple other users disagreeing with his point of view in the #Consistency with Wikipedia's use of the term "kleptocrat" section that he started which is the problem. -Object404 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bias

Bias information! 2001:4454:1B1:9500:46C:1EC6:C6A5:FCB6 (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to provide reliable resources backing your claim and list specific statements that you claim are biased. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Guiness book or record

Need evidence to prove 152.32.111.1 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the evidence. Xinghua (she/her) • Talk 01:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

dictator

Gising Pilipinas! Hindi diktador si Ferdinand Marcos. Maganda yung nagawa niya noon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaall4all (talk • contribs) 06:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello please feel free to provide reliable sources stating that he wasn't a dictator so it may be compared with currently existing literature. Firekiino (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

"Dictatorship" is pretty apt description for Marcos's administration from 1972 to 1978 as he ruled without a legislature at those times. Even governments that are branded as such today like Kim Jong-un's North Korea still have show elections for the Supreme People's Assembly. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed as Firekiino alluded to, it would be far more easier to find WP:RS refuting arguments that the 1972-78 period wasn't a dictatorship than actual arguments that it wasn't (forget about arguments saying that it is). Howard the Duck (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)