Template:Vital article

Imelda Marcos was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result February 12, 2014 Peer review Not reviewed March 31, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed March 23, 2015 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 26, 2016 Good article nominee Listed April 29, 2016 Peer review Not reviewed May 6, 2016 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 19, 2016 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 9, 2018 Good article reassessment Delisted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 31, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Imelda Marcos (pictured) spent US$2,000 on chewing gum in an airport stop? Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Fashion C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tambayan Philippines B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Women's History B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Politics C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

/Archive 1 (creation-2015) Talk:Imelda Marcos/GA1 (2014)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I do not understand the reason why my edits on placing a criminal infobox on this page has always been removed. It is not fair that we apply the same standards as with other personalities on Wikipedia who have been convicted Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for another infobox in the middle of the article with no new information. The infobox you are attempting to add is for the lede. I suppose if there is consensus you could modify the existing infobox to add the information you are trying to add. But adding an infobox in the middle of the article to an article that already has excess detail and many WP:MOS problems is not helpful or needed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be a compromise to consolidate for both the officeholder and criminal profile under one infobox? Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible you could modify the infobox to contain more relevant information. Note that Imelda is not primarily known as a criminal and her convictions were recent with relatively little coverage outside the Philippines, so whatever changes are proposed to the infobox must be WP:DUE. You might also want to read WP:RGW. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, "not primarily known for?" The convictions per se may not have had as much press coverage, but almost all international coverage mention ill-gotten wealth, unless they're passing mentions that focus on a specific subset like, say, the shoes or the jewels or the manhattan buildings. She's certainly not known for being a former first lady the same way, say, Ladybird Johnson or Ming Ramos is. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, she is primarily known for the shoes, etc and not for the convictions. Were the convictions directly related to the ill gotten wealth? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They were literally filed at the Anti-graft court. There are human rights violations cases, but those are more associated (at least in the press) with Ferdinand (and in one instance Imee) than with Imelda herself.- Chieharumachi (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt see any human rights cases on the article when i just looked again. I see an acquittal in New York and a conviction under appeal in Philippines. Someone can do the math, but it looks to me that less than 10% of the article is dedicated to this alleged criminal behavior. As I said above we dont need an extra infobox inline in the article due to MOS issues, and someone could edit the existing infobox to add the conviction if they think it is important. But the subject of this article is not primarily known as a criminal despite the frequent WP:SOAP that goes on at this article and continues in this talk page discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying the human rights cases were prominent in Imelda's specific case, I was simply acknowledging they were there, you know, to acknowledge the complete facts and to make sure I'm not missing a detail. I was answering your question about whether or not the convictions directly related to the ill gotten wealth. They are. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I don't care much about the infobox, which is why I'm not doing much about it. But I think it's unhealthy to pretend Imelda is somehow not well-known for the plunder cases. Or at least the supreme-court defined "ill gotten" wealth. It's literally what she holds a world record for:Greatest Robbery of a Government. The shoes are just an iconic representation thereof. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:NOTFORUM applies to all this nonsense. Take it to reddit where someone might care. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the sarcastic tone and the unnecessarily dismissive language is exactly what makes these conversations unnecessarily long. But back to my point. It's not nonsense, it's calling attention to the fact that pretending she isn't known for the ill-gotten wealth is pushing potential WP:FALSEBALANCE, even in the best interpretation. The literature - journalistic (NYT, Guardian, WaPo, from the early 80s to present), academic (UH, ADMU, numerous journals from the early 80s to present), legal (Ph Sandiganbayan, Ph Supreme Court, the World Bank Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative) - more than supports that the interest in the wealth is interesting on the basis of its provenance. That's why I'm continuing along these lines. You do not get to use sarcastic mean language in an effort to get people of the opposite position to concede the burden of proof. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the info box. This is important information as historical revisionists/negationists keep insisting that the Marcoses have never been convicted of anything. -Object404 (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Object404: Is it correct WP:MOS to put the infobox inside of another infobox? Your answer is essentially WP:RGW and ignores the style issues I have raised above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the criminal infobox and embed the personal details template to expand it. The template is a customized wrapper for the infobox person template. However, the guidelines specifically say "Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." Many more people will know her as the leader of the Phillipines rather than being a criminal. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Imelda Marcos was never "leader of the Philippines" and she is quite famous for being a criminal, having co-held the Guinness World Record for Greatest Robbery of a Government for decades. -Object404 (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not sure if there's an actual MOS problem (I followed the instructions for module integration at Template:Infobox_officeholder, after all), and I agree with User:Object404, I also find the substance of User:Timtempleton's suggestion prudent; I suggest we explore using Template:Infobox_person instead of integrating Template:Infobox_criminal into Template:Infobox_officeholder. I am currently looking into whether all the parameters of officeholder and criminal are present in person. Will update. Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: based on the template documentation it seems Template:Infobox_person contains some variant of all the parameters of both Template:Infobox_criminal into Template:Infobox_officeholder - the exception being no separate Term_start and Term_end parameters, the lack of an other_party parameter, and some of the parameters having different names (criminal_penalty instead of conviction_penalty, for example). I don't want to cause any appearance issues by implementing a change so I will take a much closer look at the material after doing housechores. But I see the use of Template:Infobox_person as a neutral solution to our conundrum. Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Unfortunately, it turns out Template:Infobox_person does not accept parameters for multiple offices such as Office2, Term3, or Successor4. Can someone recommend a workaround? - Chieharumachi (talk)

Update: Upon the advice of User:Trappist the monk at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Imelda_Marcos_MOS_issues, the layout MOS issue for Template:Infobox_officeholder has been addressed. I hope this resolves the MOS issues for that template. - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also am opposed to the dedicated infobox per Timtempleton (talk · contribs) comment. But some limited coverage added to the existing infobox might be useful. I deleted one line to reduce weight. Tim, do you think this content is appropriate and DUE for infobox? I dont have a strong position and I mostly just watch this article as it tends to stray off into minutia as the article seems to be a lightning rod for WP:RGW and navalgazing. I dont have a big problem with the infobox now after pruning a bit. Comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: I think you found an elegant solution. I like the way it looks now. One other thing to consider - I’m sure that unflattering media coverage about her, along with the authorities’ ability to prosecute and convict her, have been affected by the support of their current leader. Recent news seems to have slowed down. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TimTempleton: I tend to agree it is likely political, and she probably will find the political sway to have it overturned. I suppose every former head of state of a third world nation could have his/her info box edited to add the charges that the new regime adds to support their ethos. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizalninoynapoleon: i removed the excessive detail you added to the infobox. Sentence is irrelevant as she is out on bail and case under appeal. Discuss here and find consensus before you add. As you can see above there is not currently consensus for all this excess. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rizalninoynapoleon, Jtbobwaysf, Timtempleton, Object404, and Chieharumachi: If I may also reiterate my comment earlier that we maintain Wikipedia:civility, even though I was incensed to the point of brushing against it, myself, in Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Re:_Placing_an_criminal_infobox_on_the_Imelda_Marcos_page. Specifically "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment;" "Avoid condescension;" and "Be careful with edit summaries" seem to apply. I strongly feel that language use has led to unnecessary escalation of tensions in what is already a very complicated topic. (FYI, I have pinged everyone in that thread here, including myself.)- Chieharumachi (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is now WP:BLUDGEON Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't questioned your opinions, only your choice of emotion-laden, scornful words in the place of explanations of the reasoning for your edits. (Here on the talk page, and in the edit descriptions.) Many of your edits are actually quite constructive, but the sarcasm, value-laden word choices, and the insulting tone prevents further discourse. Calling something "nonsense" without providing a rationalization is frankly a cause of great distress. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen the only thing I care about is that it is fair to place a criminal infobox on this page given that Imelda Marcos was convicted by a court in the Philippines and she is disqualified from public office though she is out on bail. We do not pick willy nilly and be fair on all those who were convicted of a crime to be given the fair share and not play any favoritism. If there are any ways for this to be reflected I am all for it, but Chieharumachi has mentioned there needs to be civility over here. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are again making an WP:RGW argument. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: you've been deleting quite a lot of content (which I personally find useful and quite informative) for being "excessive detail". What is your objective criteria for deleting all of this? Mind you the Merriam-Webster defines "Encyclopedic" (which Wikipedia is supposed to be as an encyclopedia as "COMPREHENSIVE" (capitalization not mine) and lists the following as synonyms: "all-embracing, all-in [chiefly British], all-inclusive, broad-gauge (or broad-gauged), compendious, complete, comprehensive, cover-all, cyclopedic, embracive, exhaustive, full, global, inclusive, in-depth, omnibus, panoramic, thorough, universal". -Object404 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Object404: we dont use merriam-webster for anything here. We use WP:DUE and WP:MOS, you can refer to those. I have been removing excess dribble from this article, and cleaning up an already long infobox. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Define dribble. -Object404 (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a term I use to reflect excess, not that important. WP:TOOMUCH is what I am talking about. This article has problems with this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are starting to delete too much detail and important Philippine historical and cultural contexts vis a vis Imelda Marcos. I will be restoring them when I have time. -Object404 (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a BLP and is not about Philippines history. Dont restore disputed content without finding consensus on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? You initiated removing them without finding consensus on the talk page. -Object404 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus about deletions, then. The following changes in the lede were made on August 19, and seem - correct me if I'm wrong - to be a matter of contention.

• (a)... are widely believed to have illegally amassed a multi-billion U.S. dollar personal fortune...
• (b)... initiated numerous government works projects that are today referred to as an Edifice Complex.
• (c) ...President Corazon Aquino allowed the Marcos family to return…
• (d)She, along with her husband Ferdinand, are famous for holding the...

I suggest we discuss the pros and cons of these deletions before moving forward. - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with item D, for which I have two comments: first, I actually have no objectons to the deletion of the "famous for" phrase, as long as the fact is actually there. However, the fact itself is misrepresented by the past tense "held." The record is held to this day, as indicated by Guinness. Since this is a correction of fact, and not of notability, I will make the factual change, supported by a source, boldly and now. - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are conflicting statements in the lede (multibillion dollar), infobox (~1B PHP), in article 5-10B wealth numbers. WP:LEDE and WP:infobox are to summarize, this needs to be cleaned up to one amount, and if there is a range question it can be explored in the article's content. Please discuss and put content in article in text, or it needs to be greatly modified in infobox and lede. Or is it a range from $200M-10B? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

$5-10B. -Object404 (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken material from Presidential Commission on Good Government to specify the amounts and the rationale for the various estimates: USD5-10 Billion acquired from 1983 to 1986 and surviving documents; and a less-clear amount acquired from 1965 to 1986 which an economist said could be as high as USD30 Billion. - Chieharumachi (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chieharumachi: Now the article is WP:TOOMUCH on this wealth matter, and the style is poor. For example there is a sentence for each estimate, and there are many. This can simply be summarized to state she is estimated to have wealth between X and Y. She states herself her wealth is $20M. Thus there is a very wide range here, but for WP:MOS this need to be done more cleanly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf:There should be a separate section on the Ill-gotten wealth, which dates back to '86, and is what she is actually known for. The 22 Million is just her claimed net worth as of 2012, after all the sequestrations, compromise deals, and penalties. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is already a section dedicated to her wealth. There is no need for a sub-section (or another top level section if that is what you are proposing) for ill gotten wealth. There is no clear distinction between what wealth she has that she earned or what is ill gotten and would be impossible to attempt to create one. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the section to Ill-gotten Wealth. Problem solved. -Object404 (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting the renaming of the section to Ill-gotten Wealth. That is what the paragraphs under this section are talking about anyway. @Jtbobwaysf: it doesn't imply her entire wealth is ill-gotten; it implies that the section is primarily discussing ill-gotten wealth. Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing in support to renaming the section to ill-gotten wealth. There is a huge difference when talking about earned or personal, and ill-gotten wealth, especially in the context of national corruption. It also makes sense to do this, given the preceding section of "major court cases" Channahnocturne (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening up a new section for proposed deletions in the lede beginning today, 08 August 2020.

• In the last sentence, which says "In November 2018, she was convicted of corruption charges for her activities some forty years earlier, during her term as governor of Manila", I propose that "her activities some forty years earlier" is an unnecessary repetition of the timeframe already better represented by "during her term as governor of Manila." I will delete this phrase in 24 hours unless there are reasonable objections, and should there be an argument to return the phrase after it is deleted, I submit that this is a good place to achieve consensus about said deletion. The new phrasing will be "...she was convicted of corruption charges for activities during her term as governor of Manila" Thank you. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. The article has a lot of phrasing problems, and this is exactly the type of stuff that needs to be fixed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf:,@Object404: Wait, the lede has changed again since I last looked at it, did someone make changes? - Chieharumachi (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made reductions to the lede, the WP:lede is to summarize, not introduce new content. Nor is it a place to push (ie give WP:undue weight) to WP:POVs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Because I thought we agreed to seek consensus before making major changes to the lede. Should I abandon this talkpage section altogether, then? - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, I am now now seeking consensus for a change of the phrase "21 years,[5] during which she and her husband amassed a personal fortune,[6][7] the bulk of which still remains unrecovered.[8]" to include the 2003 Ph supreme court ruling, to read: "...21 years.[5] During this time she and her husband amassed a personal fortune,[6][7] which was determined by the Philippine Supreme court in 2003 to be "ill gotten."[ref name RaplerCasesStatus] The bulk of this wealth still remains unrecovered.[8]" - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dont add that, again that is excess detail for the lede. You can read WP:LEDE to understand that the lede is a summary, and for this article dont care if it is the philippines supreme court, switzerland, some regional court, the new york court, etc. Too many courts, its not ok to add all this junk to the lede. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not junk. It adds authority to the "accusations", because there are so many well-funded Marcos Martial Law denialists (in the style of Holocaust denialists) and historical negationists in the Philippines who seek to discredit these charges. It's important information in the lede and not "junk" as you unilaterally determined. -Object404 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ill-gotten nature of the Marcos wealth is a court-established fact, and an essential element in the journalistic and scholarly discourse on the subject. We can discuss whether there is a more-legally sound way of discussing it, but refusing to have it in the lede is just POV-pushing by omission. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And likely a politically motivated court. If you want to push this you need to do an RfC and see if you can find consensus, and I doubt that without you having some good RS. Just saying the court said it is not good enough here. We are not going to say in wikivoice that her wealth is ill-gotten unless there is consensus per WP:BLP. Your edits here appear to be WP:BATTLE and WP:RGW related. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Politically motivated? A number of courts all over the world have ruled on the Marcoses' theft and ill-gotten wealth. The Philippines' global influence is not very high and they all corroborate the same thing. Would you like to WP:Proveit that it's politically motivated? This doesn't need consensus as there's more than enough citations for it. -Object404 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that the Marcos wealth was established as ill-gotten is pertinent information that should be placed in the lede. This is not WP:RGW because it's been ruled by several courts and documented extensively. Not original thought at all. But no need to add the excessive detail that it was "determined by the Philippine Supreme Court in 2003" -- this can be cut off from the lede and discussed in the relevant section in the article. So I propose "21 years, during which she and her husband amassed a personal fortune, the bulk of which was determined to be ill-gotten [citation] and still remains uncovered [citation]." Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have any issue with the sentence you are proposing, I too took issue with this supreme court dribble in the lede. Please add the citations at the end of each sentence. See WP:Inline citation. And adding extra citations to justify inclusion is WP:OVERREF and it often occurs in the lede when editors are trying to justify extra WP:DUE weight, so limit the citations to one or two per sentence. Nothing is controversial about these topics that it is ill gotten wealth, her shoe collection, or that she apparently has a lot of it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with new sentence proposed - I don't know how that narrative framing is more acceptable, but as long as court-established fact is stated, I don't object to the supporting evidence being located elsewhere in the article. I still feel that all statements in a BLP need to have their evidence spelled out, every time. But if consensus says that the statement, by itself, is enough, then I will add my voice to the consensus. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global case conviction/ruling citations:

• https://newslab.philstar.com/31-years-of-amnesia/never-convicted
• https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/14/world/swiss-bank-found-with-800-million-in-marcos-s-name.html
• https://star.worldbank.org/corruption-cases/node/18497
• https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/money/content/342344/singapore-court-awards-23m-in-marcos-money-to-pnb/story/
• https://www.cenpeg.org/2010/1gov/jun/Remembering_the_Past=Chronology_of_the_Marcos_Plunder.html
• https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/04/21/Marcos-mansion-in-New-Jersey-sold/7689545976000/
• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-marcos-aidesentencing/stolen-art-sale-gets-imelda-marcos-ex-aide-six-years-in-new-york-prison-idUSBREA0C16F20140113

-Object404 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any good sources that state the wealth is ill-gotten? I looked at Reuters and NYT above, and neither state the wealth is ill gotten. They simply refer to her being rich. We need WP:RS to state that the wealth is ill gotten, not us editors using our our WP:OR to determine it is ill gotten. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen, plundered, illegally acquired, amassed using state assets, of criminal origin, sourced from corruption. The only sources on this list that don't use words that mean ill-gotten is the occasional source that restricted itself to "hidden" or "secret" because it was written before any court decisions. (That's the March 1986 NYT article.) The Reuters source explicitly says "Imelda Marcos amassed art, jewelry and other valuables using state assets." I do not understand what you are failing to see.- Chieharumachi (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox currently says that her successor as First Lady of the Philippines was Ballsy Aquino-Cruz, and the wikilink redirects to Corazon Aquino. Is this information accurate? I know Ballsy is the eldest daughter of Cory, but was she really considered the first lady then? According to First Lady or Gentleman of the Philippines :

  Her eldest daughter, María Elena "Ballsy" Aquino-Cruz, served as her mother's proxy in some social functions and accompanied her on state visits. In a similar fashion to Victoria Quirino-Delgado, Aquino-Cruz was informally styled "First Lady"; her brother, Benigno III (later President) was meanwhile considered First Gentleman.[citation needed]

  In the same manner, Noynoy Aquino was a bachelor so he had no first lady during his term (2010-2016). I've never heard of Kris Aquino being regarded as first lady yet the article lists her as such. Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are looking at this stuff! If we need to explain it with our own WP:OR, then we should delete it. The article suffers from WP:TOOMUCH and this appears to be another example. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While seeking consensus, I have tagged the following concerns in the paragraph on her birth:

• the detailed explanation of the term católicos cerrados, when it is sufficient simply to cll her "Catholic" (source is Pedrosa 1987b)
• the extensive anecdote of her father hiring nurses and reserving a suite, which is cutesy, but ultimately trivial. (source is Pedrosa 1987 pp=16–17)
• the name of Monsignor Juan Somera who supposedly performed the baptismal ceremony. (unsourced fact)

The tags are there and I won't do anything about these details for at least 24 hours, to allow for comments. Past that, this section of the talk page can serve WP:Preserve purposes. I've made sure to carefully document the references used. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Chieharumachi (talk)

Hi everyone. I've decided to pay attention to the 1965 Campaign Section, which has long had a tag about the unencyclopedic writing style, which also happens to be longer and more repetitive than it should be. Since there seem to be calls to trim down the page, I decided to contribute by trying to wikify and shorten this section. However, there are large portions that seem unnecessary to me, but which others may feel are important; and sections which I myself feel are useful except that they aren't appropriate for this specific section, and may be useful when reinserted later in the text. Thus, in the interest of WP:Preserve, I am keeping a record of the original text, and of the text I replaced it with, so anybody will be able to trace down anything important that I may have accidentally removed. If you feel I have been in error, do please feel free to discuss with me here in the talk page. The chages are as follows:

• Paragraph I - Ferdinand Marcos was aided by his wife in his political campaigns. Imelda used her charismatic appeal to get votes for her husband.

Paragraph V- Marcos strategists took advantage of Imelda's exceptional charm and youth by incorporating these and her other striking qualities into the presidential candidate's overall tone for the Marcos-led Nacionalista campaign. They were able to use her by attracting normal folk from their daily activities to attend a Marcos rally to see the "beautiful wife of Marcos" themselves. The mere mention of Imelda attending a rally would make people attend the rally and scamper for a place near the stage, not to listen to the speeches, but rather just to see the lovely wife of Ferdinand Marcos. She was asked by the Marcos aides to always appear in public at all times at her best regardless of the type of audience. An integral part of their strategy was for Imelda to wear her standard ternos as part of the campaign design.<ref name=":5" />

Paragraph VI - Ferdinand acknowledged that it was Imelda who delivered the one million vote margin he needed to be elected.<ref name=":0x">{{Cite book|title=Inside the palace|last=Romulo|first=Beth Day|publisher=G. P. Putnam's Sons|year=1987|isbn=|location=New York|pages=|quote=|via=}}</ref>{{page needed|date=February 2018}}

Paragraph VII - It was during this presidential campaign, as described by publicists, that Imelda became influential as a political figure at the national level. She would later be dubbed by a foreign journalist as "the iron butterfly", after Imelda's description of herself as "a butterfly breaking out of its cocoon" — from a political neophyte to her husband Ferdinand's political partner.{{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}}][page needed]]

Paragraph XIV - By the time Marcos was campaigning to become President, Imelda's influence on Marcos's political career was crucial. Her husband may have been a good tactician, but it was Imelda's determination and popularity that ensured votes for him. Marcos heavily relied on Imelda, and as time passed, Imelda was no longer a clone of Marcos. Instead, she had become an un-elected politician in her own right and his political partner.{{sfn|Pedrosa|1987b|p=103}}

• Replacement text: It was during the 1965 campaign that Imelda became influential as a political figure at the national level,{{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}} [page needed] supporting her husband’s political tactics through her charismatic appeal and youth.<ref name="Kasaysayan9ch10">{{Cite book |title=Kasaysayan, The Story of the Filipino People Volume 9:A Nation Reborn. |publisher=Asia Publishing Company Limited |year=1998 |editor-last=Magno |editor-first=Alexander R. |location=Hong Kong |chapter=Democracy at the Crossroads}}</ref>{{rp|page=125}} Crowds of working class Filipinos came out in droves to Marcos campaigns because they wanted to see the “beautiful wife of Marcos.”<ref name=":5" />

Campaign strategists incorporated Imelda’s public appeal into the overall tone of the Marcos-led Nacionalista campaign, asking Imelda to always appear at her best in public at all times regardless of the type of audience, and encouraging her to wear her signature ternos as integral part of their image strategy.<ref name=":5" />

Marcos heavily relied on Imelda,{{sfn|Pedrosa|1987b|p=103}}telling the press at one point that it was Imelda who had delivered the one million vote margin he needed to win the election.<ref name=":0x">{{Cite book|title=Inside the palace|last=Romulo|first=Beth Day|publisher=G. P. Putnam's Sons|year=1987|isbn=|location=New York|pages=|quote=|via=}}</ref>{{page needed|date=February 2018}}<ref name="TheKingmaker">{{cite AV media | people=Greenfield, Lauren (Director) | author-link= [[Lauren Greenfield]] | date=November 8, 2019 | title=[[The Kingmaker (film)|The Kingmaker]] | medium=Documentary film | location=Philippines | publisher=[[Showtime Networks]]}}</ref>

It was in this period that Imelda described herself - a neophyte transitioning into a true political partner to her husband – as "a butterfly breaking out of its cocoon" This led one foreign journalist to call her as "the iron butterfly."{{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}} [page needed]

• Paragraph II - Marcos initially needed to win votes of the delegates of the Nacionalista Party for the presidential candidacy. Imelda assumed the managerial position in her husband's campaign.{{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}}][page needed] The other candidates of the party noted her enthusiasm during the campaign; she met with and befriended every single delegate of the 1,347 who would have a say in the Nacionalista Party Convention. {{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}} [page needed] She would talk with each of them, visit them in their own homes, and attend gatherings such as birthday parties, anniversaries, and weddings. Of all the presidential candidates' wives, Imelda was the only one who went through a detailed and personal campaign for her husband.[26][page needed] On November 21, 1964, Ferdinand Marcos won the presidential nomination for the Nacionalista Party.[28][page needed]

Paragraph III - Imelda also managed to convince Fernando Lopez to accept the vice-presidential nomination along with presidential candidate Ferdinand Marcos.[43](p507) She first invited Lopez to personally meet with her in his suite. Lopez accepted the invitation but preferred to talk with her in her suite instead. To persuade Lopez, her methods include appealing to Lopez's sympathy by telling him the struggles that she and Ferdinand faced during the campaign for Ferdinand's nomination and how she felt being abandoned by Lopez. Lopez refused multiple times until Imelda cried in front of him. Imelda then proceeded to hand him and make him sign a document stating that he had accepted the nomination as the Nacionalista vice-presidential candidate.[43](p507)

Paragraph XIII - Not only was Imelda good with people, she was also a skilled mediator who mended broken relationships that occurred with Marcos.

• Replacement text: Imelda had assumed a managerial position in her husband's campaign early on, when Marcos faced his first challenge of the campaign, which was to win the presidential candidacy for the Nacionalista Party.{{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}}][page needed]

She enthusiastically ran a detailed campaign,befriending the the 1,347 delegates of the Nacionalista Party Convention{{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}} [page needed] until Ferdinand Marcos won the party’s presidential nomination on November 21, 1964, for the Nacionalista Party. {{sfn|Polotan|1970|p=}}{{page needed|date=November 2018}}

It was supposedly also Imelda who convinced Fernando Lopez to accept the vice-presidential nomination alongside Marcos.<ref name="McCoy1994">{{Cite book |title=An Anarchy of families : state and family in the Philippines |last=McCoy |first=Alfred W. |date=1994 |publisher=Ateneo de Manila University Press |isbn=9715501281 |location=Quezon City, Manila, Philippines |oclc=36756851}}</ref>{{rp|page=507}} She met Lopez personally, appealing to him by recounting the many struggles she and Ferdinand faced during the campaign. Lopez refused to give in multiple times, until Imelda cried in front of him. When he relented, Imelda proceeded to hand a document to sign, stating that he had accepted the nomination as the Nacionalista vice-presidential candidate. <ref name="McCoy1994">{{ rp|page=507}}

• Paragraph IV - During the presidential election itself, she delivered votes from the southern province of Leyte, and Manila. She was especially popular with the poor. {{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}} [page needed] Imelda also used her voice to appeal to voters, singing during campaigns. Her songs are usually varieties of local folk songs. {{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}}[{{sfn|Pedrosa|1969}}][page needed]

• Section Retained, but I'll do some grammar fixing later.

• Paragraph VIII - As First Lady, Imelda Marcos was summoned more than once from the Malacañang Palace in order to campaign for her husband and Nacionalista candidates 1985 presidential elections and during the 1967 senatorial and local elections as its results were of importance for the results of the succeeding 1969 presidential election.[46] This was based on what had happened to former President Diosdado Macapagal wherein the defeat of his Senate candidates had presaged his own fall on the following election. Marcos concentrated his efforts in Cebu which indicated that he felt that his most serious rival would be Senator Sergio Osmeña, Jr. Marcos used the First Lady as his special ace and made her campaign in Cebu using her glamour and charm among the Cebuano people. In the 1985 and 1969 presidential elections, Ferdinand even called Imelda Marcos as his "secret weapon."[46] Through the combined efforts of the President and First Lady, they were able to repudiate the leadership of Osmena in his own province. All eight Senatorial candidates of the Nacionalista party in Cebu won and 47 out of 49 Cebu towns were captured by the Marcos-led Nacionalistas. <ref name=":5" />

• Paragraph temporarily removed due to irrelevance to 1965 campaign; retained here under WP:Preserve, with an eye towards reinsertion in the appropriate campaign years later in the text.

• Paragraph IX- Imelda knew that her husband Ferdinand Marcos had dreamed of becoming the president of the Philippines ever since he was a congressman. One reason Marcos married Imelda, aside from her physical charms, was because she was a Romualdez—an aristocrat. Imelda's beauty, as well as her background, was appreciated to a great extent by Marcos and Marcos believed she would not only add light to his daily life but also to his political career.<ref name="TheKingmaker"/>

Paragraph X - Imelda, coming from a family who practiced a simple lifestyle, had initial difficulties adjusting to her husband's extravagant lifestyle. She once complained that she was only earning a hundred and twenty pesos a month despite her hard labor. To this, Marcos laughed and said that it was her fault that she was working hard only for such an amount. This was a turning point for Imelda; to no longer feel guilty about spending money. From then on, she pushed herself to extreme luxury. {{sfn|Pedrosa|1987b|p=88}}

Paragraph XI - Imelda was expected to be sophisticated, elegant, and well versed by her husband. Marcos knew that having a supportive wife, a trophy that he could be proud of, would gain him more supporters as well as votes. Imelda began dressing herself with expensive clothes and made every effort to become the person whom her husband wanted her to be. {{sfn|Pedrosa|1987b|p=90}}

Paragraph XII - In her efforts to be the perfect wife, she was often criticized for trying too hard, but at the same time, she became a subject of envy by fellow politicians' wives. {{sfn|Pedrosa|1987b|p=97}} Imelda learned how to get people's attention and to focus it on both her and her husband. She reached out to every single person who was seen as essential in Marcos's campaign. In hindsight, her efforts were not only original, but extraordinary. No other politicians' wives shook hands with all the delegates, visited their homes, genuinely understood their concerns, aside from Imelda. She bombarded them with gifts when necessary. {{sfn|Pedrosa|1987b|p=101}}

• Paragraphs seem to have neutrality issues.

I hope that this will help make the article a bit shorter and less repetitive. Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions. I love the quote where 'Imelda was summoned by her husband.' How is that for dramatic? ;-) For sure not wikipedia style. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the bibliography back on the article? We are not amazon and we dont list books on the subject, see WP:NOTDIR. Someone earlier suggested these were used as references, but I dont see any reference tags on these. Are these used as references? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because bibliographies are not disallowed on Wikipedia and a number of the citation references are linked to the Bibliography. You broke them by removing the bibliography. -Object404 (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the history of the article, it seems the problem is that the article uses both parenthetical and <ref> tags referencing. The bibliography is there because back when this article was younger, it used parenthetical referencing , and while the current article has more <ref> tags, there are still bits that use parenthetical referencing. (I did not know much about this, and it turns out the applicable policy WP:CITEVAR, basically leaves us all to seek consensus based on existing practice). Personally, I am beginning to see how parenthetical is neater and cleaner. But if we're seeking consensus, I think I'm going to have to be convinced that one system is better than the other in the case if the Imelda Marcos article. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Object404: which refs specifically were broken? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot. -Object404 (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

here per WP:PRESERVE