Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Second Dictatorship?

Never heard of this. Is this for real? Shrumster 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any scholarly or news related references to Marcos/2nd Dictatorship & Aguinaldo/1st Dictatorship and it doesn't show up on [National Historical Institute] or particularly Philippine Presidency Project (although of debatable authority, see [1] and [2]). All the web references appear to be derived from wikipedia.The first instance of this terminology on wp appears to go back to this 2005 edit. Hmmm... 71.146.132.144 07:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Dictatorship - there is no such thing or terminology in Philippine history.. Marcos regime is either a "constitutional authoritarianism" (if you are Marcos loyalist or sympathizer) or simply a "dictatorship" (if you are against the Marcoses).

It is also wrong to say that Marcos is the Second Dictator because there were three Presidents before him who were also considered as dictators or authoritarian leaders.

1. President Emilio Aguinaldo, who assumed the title of "Dictator" for a brief period of time under a Dictatorial Government;

2. Manuel Quezon - Quezon controlled the legislature and politicians became subservient to him :through mollification, coalition, and fusion. According to Teodoro Agoncillo: "By 1941, Quezon had eliminated all elite opposition within and without the Nacionalista Party... 'Opposition parties and individual liberties' were two democratic fetishes that must be discarded, he intoned." The American High Commissioner during that time, Francis Sayre, described Quezon's actions as a "trend toward totalitarianism and an exceeding danger to democracy."

With the legislature under his control, Quezon was able to extend his term from a one six-year term to a two eight-year term through constitutional amendments in 1940.

Maybe, Marcos got his idea of dictatorship or authoritarianism from Quezon..

3. Jose P. Laurel - The 1943 de facto Constitution of the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Republic provided the President vast powers, making him a constitutional dictator Unfortunately or fortunately, Laurel was not able to exercise his power as President because of Japanese interference..

4. Corazon Aquino was also described as a dictator (of course, by the Marcos loyalists) when she abolished the Batasang Pambansa and assumed full legislative power from 1986-1987 by virtue of the 1986 Freedom Constitution. Angeles624 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Hector de Leon's Constitution book, the first textbook of all poli-sci noobs in the Phils., clearly says a part of Aguinaldo's presidency is the "First Dictatorship," (with the other part as the "First Revolutionary Period," the second one Cory's early days in office.) hence Marcos's period from the declaration of martial law up to his inauguration after the 1981 election is the second dictatorship, fellowed by the 4th republic. --Howard the Duck 06:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could credible wikipedia articles be written about a First Philippine Dictatorship and Second Philippine Dictatorship? The lack of even a modicum of published scholarly discourse (positive or negative) referencing this terminology indicates it may be non-mainstream. See WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. 71.146.144.24 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We have First Philippine Republic and History of the Philippines (1965-1986), both valid and mainstream events in Philippine history. --Howard the Duck 06:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, Hector de Leon never used the terms First Dictatorship and Second Dictatorship in his book, Textbook on Philippine Constitution. Never! The following are what De Leon really wrote in his book:

Governments during the revolutionary era

The Dictatorial Government - Following the outbreak of the Spanish-American war on April 25, 1898, Gen. Aguinaldo, in view of the chaotic conditions in the country, established the Dictatorial Government on May 23, 1898....(Hector de Leon. Textbook on Philippine Constitution, Manila: Rex Bookstore, 1999, p. 13.)

The Previous Philippine Republics

(2) The First Republic was established on January 23, 1899 under the Malolos Constitution; the Second, on October 14, 1943 under the Japanese-sponsored Constitution, and the Third, on July 4, 1946 under the 1935 Constitution. President ferdinand E. Marcos, in his inaugural address on June 30, 1981, proclaimed the birth of the Fourth Philippine Republic under the 1973 Constitution, as amended in a plebiscite on April 7, 1981, installed a modified parliamentary system of government, thus making him its first President. All in all, there were nine Presidents in the previous three republics, including President Marcos in his two terms in the Third Republic.(Ibid., p. 16)

[footnote no. 30: The last 14-year rule of President Marcos from the declaration of martial law on September 21, 1972 until his overthrow on February 25, 1986 by the so-called "people power revolution," was generally described as dictatorial or authoritarian. (ibid)]

I've done numerous research on the Marcoses for my MA and read a lot of books (pro and anti) about the Marcos Administration. None of these books have ever used the term "Second Dictatorship."

Books on Political Law by Justice Isagani Cruz and Sen. Miriam Santiago never used the term "Second Dictatorship to cover the period 1972-1886 of the Marcos regime.

History books (especially by Sonia Zaide) never used the term "Second Dictatorship)

Many students (especially in HS) rely on Wikipedia as one of their sources of information for their assignments in Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies). We must not mislead them by using terms such as "First Dictatorship" or "Second Dictatorship," which are not accepted by Filipino historians and political scientists. Angeles624 07:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In the course of Philippine history, there have been two dictatorial governments: Aguinaldo's (first) and Marcos' (second). That is pretty straightforward. I never said HdL called Marcos' administration from 1969-1981 as "Second Dictatorship", I said HdL described two dictatorial governments in Philippine history.

And as much as possible, I avoid to use Zaide's books (both father and daughter), unless its about Rizal. --Howard the Duck 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(Interestingly, a discussion like this happened at Talk:President of the Philippines. --Howard the Duck 12:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC))

I agree that there have been two or three dictatorial governments: Aguinaldo's (under a Dictatorial Government); Laurel's Constitutional Dictatorship during the Second Republic; and Marcos' (from 1972-1986). But the term "President of the Second Dictatorship" is totally unacceptable. I reiterate, there is no such thing as "Second Dictatorship" in Philippine political history.

Re: Zaides' books on Philippine history: I also avoid using Gregorio and Sonia Zaide's books because of their unreliable methods in historiography and subjectivity.

I really enjoyed this friendly discussion about the Marcos Administration. Thanks =)Angeles624 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For Laurel's period, it's the "Second Republic", so that brings us to Aguinaldo's (First) and Marcos' (Second), now if you can think of a term to encompass 1971-1981 events, be my guest. --Howard the Duck 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Martial Law Period.. most history books and books on Politics and Governance used this term to encompass the events from 1972-1981 (or up to 1986).

As to Laurel, there is no dispute that he was President of the Second Philippine Republic. What I am pointing out is: that his government was described as a constitutional dictatorship.

Just like Marcos, Marcos was President of the Third and Fourth Republics and from 1972 until his downfall in 1986, his government was described as dictatorial or authoritarian. He never assumed the title "Dictator" (unlike Aguinaldo) and the government is still republican (unlike Aguinaldo's Dictatorial Government). The term "dictator" and dictatorship" were used to describe the government of President Marcos from 1972-1986. It is an adjective, not a noun.

Aguinaldo on the other hand, assumed the title "Dictator" and formed a "Dictatorial Government." It is not a mere description or adjective. Angeles624 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So how about Aguinaldo's Dictatorial government? What should we call it? --Howard the Duck 06:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We should call it simply a "Dictatorial Government" because it was the official name of Aguinaldo's government from May 24 - June 23, 1898.

Aguinaldo was: Dictator of the Dictatorial Government (May 24 - June 23, 1898)."Dictator", in this case, is an actual title he assumed as head of the government.  ; President of the Revolutionary Government (June 23, 1898 - January 23, 1899) and President of the First Philippine Republic (January 23, 1899-March 23, 1901).

(Please, in replying, increase the number of colons to the left so we'd have a natural flow, and always sign your posts with four tildes.)

So in other words, Aguinaldo wasn't a president from May 24-June 23 (since he used the term "Dictator"), which makes the dictatorial government not a part of the presidential system? --Howard the Duck 08:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, the Dictatorial Government laid the foundation for the establishment of a republican-presidential system the following year. It was the nucleus of the First Philippine Republic. Angeles624 08:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I need concrete answers so I can sort out the mess; Julius Caesar was never an emperor but he laid the groundwork of the Roman Empire. Was Aguinaldo similar? And can't we think of another term besides Martial Law, it doesn't sound too scholarly, since as the discussion now turns out, there were two dictators, one de jure and one de facto; I won't even consider Laurel as a dictator. --Howard the Duck 09:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

<--- reset indent--->

Second dictatorship is quite controversial, I wonder why Manolo Quezon used it too. President of New Society? So would Ramos be the President of Philippines 2000? and GMA President of the Strong Republic? These were just rallying soundbites of their administration. Every "stage" or "period" of a republic is determined by the constitution in operation. From the period since he declared martial law and inaugurated the Fourth Republic, Marcos operated under the powers granted to him by the 1935 Constitution - that is the right to declare martial law, and general orders no. 1. Being the witty lawyer that he is, every decree he issues he always invokes, Proclamation 1081 and General Order No. 1, always pointing out that his powers were derived from the constitution, even most of it were suspended by an authority or a power it has also granted to the president. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg

Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg

Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Marcos Flees!.jpg

Image:Marcos Flees!.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture in question has a more improved fair use rationale as of 15:57, March 14, 2008 (PST). Hence, the articles (including this one) with the said picture will not be affected by its supposed deletion on Saturday, March 15, 2008. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

USA S.C. Final Ruling, 7-2

On June 12, 2008, the US Supreme Court (in a 7-2 ruling penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy in “Republic of the Philippines v. Mariano Pimentel”) held that: “The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded with instruc¬tions to order the District Court to dismiss the inter¬pleader action.” The Court dismissed the interpleader lawsuit filed by 9,500 Filipino human rights victims (1972-1986) to recover $ 35 million, part of a $ 2 billion judgment in U.S. courts against the Marcos estate, because the Philippines is an indispensable party, protected by sovereign immunity. It claimed ownership of the funds transferred by Marcos in 1972 to Arelma S.A., which invested the money with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., in New York.jurist.law.pitt.edu, Supreme Court rules in Marcos assetssupremecourtus.gov, REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES ET AL. v. PIMENTEL, June 12, 2008, No. 06–1204ap.google.com, Court ruling hinders Marcos victims seeking funds--Florentino floro (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please confirm Ferdinand Marcos' real father and mother Some sources say his real father is a chinese named Ferdinand Chua. Then who is the real mother? Please verify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.7.33 (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup/POV issues

This article screams "I need cleanup!" Very little has been wikified, and the article rambles on and on and has unnecessary, overly descriptive lists. Just read the lead-in section and you'll see why this article needs to be NPOV'ed! -- Bill (who is cool!) 22:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Egads... you're right. This article is so bad that it's embarrassing. :( I'm seriously tempted to give it a total overhaul like what I did to History of the Philippines. TheCoffee 01:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Marcos is great, the most brilliant Filipino the Asian race ever produced and a great Filipino GIFTED, psychic. So, it is very sad if this article will be absent in wiki. I added the most important 7 7 7 launching of his 7 books and the Center.--Florentino floro 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your addition was nonsensical and undersourced. I deleted it. 69.203.74.32 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PEDRO -- reverting that edit to re-include that nonsense content makes this article worse, if that is even possible. I request that you reconsider protecting a POV, ridiculous addition to an already vastly flawed article. 69.203.74.32 12:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The text is of poor quality, however does have two citations. I have no issue with you undoing my reversions and removing it. However please use an edit summary. By simply blanking a section and not noting why you did it will likely attract recent change patrollers, who will revert on sight. Pedro |  Chat  12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article remains painfully POV. It looks like it was written by Marcos sympathizers. Lots of unreferenced assertions. All the credible sources confirm he was a crook -- the burden of proof to the contrary is particularly heavy. Either way, can we fix this? It's so daunting a task I don't know where to start. --Rhombus (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From President Ferdinand Marcos to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo

educational attainment term of office programs/accomplishments crisis in administration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.186.252 (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible wrongful interchanging of names

I noticed under the "Early life.." heading, specifically on the part about the Nalandasan slaying, that the suspects were labeled "mariano marcos,his brother pio,son JULIUS, and brother-in-law FERDINAND..."

I was wondering of this was a typo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.198.40 (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Accomplishments section

I've removed the Accomplishments section as it was unsourced and read like a press release. Copied below. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Accomplishments

Marcos and the Maharishi This article is well-written, and I don't want to trample it. I just composed a paragraph for another article, of which only the first sentences pertain to Marcos, though there is more material available on the connection to him: In 1984, about 1200 members of the movement moved into Manila at the invitation of Ferdinand Marcos, the President of the Philippines who was facing increased protests. They named him president and founding father of the Unified Field Based Civilization. He praised Maharishi's plan to use the Philippines as the base for "this new kingdom of enlightenment" and, in a public ceremony, rang the "Maharishi bell". Imelda Marcos was given the "crown of consciousness of the royal order of the age of enlightenment". The members rented an entire floor of Manila's finest hotel along with hundreds of rooms in other hotels. They bought a large but financially troubled university, the University of the East, for $1 million, leading to a boycott by students and attacks on the Maharishi as an imperialist. A government cabinet member reported that an investigation had found that the movement members had deposited millions of dollars in Philippine bank accounts and were negotiating to buy several more colleges and universities in the area, plus hotels and other buildings. Posters promoting the benefits of Transcendental Meditation were plastered across the city and the members spread out across the city to promote the technique, leading to a response from Catholic Cardinal Jaime Sin. The movement took responsibility for the lack of violence at a large anti-government rally protesting the assassination of Benigno Aquino, but not for violent attacks by the military on rioters, two typhoons, or the eruption of Mount Mayon which also occurred during their stay. The University of the East was soon purchased back by its stakeholders, and the movement characterized the entire transaction as a $250,000 loan. In proportion to this article, I'm thinking that this might merit a sentence, or half a sentence. Perhaps something like, "another controversial action of Marcos was inviting followers of an Indian guru who promised to quell the growing violence by their meditation." Any thoughts? I don't want to overstress what is probably as minor footnote in Marcos' biography.   Will Beback  talk  13:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC) HE WAS THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER ! ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.64.71 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Reliable sources Hi I just cleaned up this page's external links section in accordance with our guidelines and there were some reliable sources in there which didn't belong, but they could be used to expand the article if anybody wanted to do so. I'm posting them below for future use. Philippines loses out on Marcos millions Philippine cult idolises Marcos "Transparency International's Top 10 Most Corrupt Heads of State". Archived from the original on October 25, 2006. "Corruption under Ferdinand Marcos". Archived from the original on January 25, 2007. ThemFromSpace 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Legacy section - mistranslation Second paragraph, 1st line: The word "amo" does not translate into "godfather". Rather, it should be translated into "boss". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.13.218 (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC) ferdinad marcos us a president] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.170.110 (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Word should be apo, not amo and it doesn't mean "grandchild". — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Feedback 04:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I believe that this article is being used to destroy a dead person's memory, it is totally biased even at the introduction alone. Reading at the whole article, redundancies occurred on several occasions like the frequent mentioning of the assasination of Ninoy Aquino and the massive corruptions his government which I believe is not relevant for most times it was brought up. I don't want to believe that wikipedia is one of the channels being used to attack the article's subject. Specifically, on the legacy section wherein more emphasis was given on the negative side. I believe that the word alone, legacy must be used for something that can be passed on and remembered by the next generation. The infastructure projects he initiated, which were never been matched by his predecessors and even succesors, were briefly mentioned, it was his biggest achievement during his presidency, so more emphasis should have been given to it. Signatory108 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Signatory1008 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Even though I personally agree with the point-of-view, I agree the "Legacy" section is extremely biased and its neutrality should be challenged. --Chimino (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC) US Support Someone with expertise should take a look at the following paragraph: By 1984, his close personal ally, U.S. President Ronald Reagan, started distancing himself from the Marcos regime that he and previous American presidents had strongly supported even after Marcos declared martial law. The United States, which had provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, was crucial in buttressing Marcos's rule over the years. During the Carter administration the relation with the U.S. soured somewhat when President Jimmy Carter targeted the Philippines in his human rights campaign. I fixed the reference, but there are a few problems with the text. First, we say that previous American presidents had strongly supported Marcos, but then we say that Carter did not. The source also doesn't identify Reagan as a "close personal ally". And I'm not thrilled about the close paraphrasing. Here's what the source says: In the months after the killing, he made concessions to his opponents under pressure from the United States, which had provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. That assistance had been important over the years in buttressing his rule. GabrielF (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Ferdinand Marcos Military Career Over the past few years I have read in the press (Philippino/ Australian / US...I'm not Sure?) a number of detailed revelations from an Australian Historian and the US national archive(?) regarding the fact that Marcos did not play a significant role in military operations in WW2 and spent, in fact, most of the war involved in black market trading in scrap metal. The wiki artical does not address these claims.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.239.37 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I've removed the this section because it was taken verbatim from another website (Marcos Presidential Center ... http://web.archive.org/web/20050503212509/www.marcospresidentialcenter.com/waryears.html). Please note, linking a source does not simply allow you to copy that source word for word. If someone wishes to rewrite this section, feel free to do so. Mav-TGIF (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Mav-TGIF No Mention of Dovie Beams Why is it that this article does not, in any way, mention the affair that President Marcos had with Dovie Beams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramscitoni (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure where this would be added into the article. Perhaps a "Personal life" section? Anyhow, a source for the affair with Dovey Beams is here. Hopefully if anyone is digging through the talk archives later, they will see this. Otherwise, I might get around to writing such a section later. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Problems with navboxes, article structure and internal linking There is a TfD discussion at TfD:Template:The Marcoses which is highly relevant to this artucle. In the course of considering a proposal by User:This, that and the other to delete Template:The Marcoses I discovered that links to articles about many opponents of Marcos, and some of his collaborators, are not linked to the text in his article, merely to the badly named and concealed navbox, full of other (overly general) links, which is now proposed for deletion. These include Insurgency in the Philippines, New People's Army, Moro National Liberation Front, Assassination of Ninoy Aquino, NAMFREL and People Power Revolution. Also, Constitution of the Philippines is a link hidden underneath alternative text, and Rolex 12 only appears without elaboration under "See also". Some of those articles are in danger of being orphaned from this article. In general the navboxes are badly thought out and positioned. These relevant links have been concealed inside a badly named navbox which was itself concealed along with several others inside a outer shell, which was wrongly placed underneath "External links". It's surprising that anyone is managing to find the navboxes in this article. I hope that editors here will take an interest in rectifying the situation. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Template:The Marcoses I have opened a discussion topic Template name and contents at Template_talk:The_Marcoses. Rubywine . talk 10:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Unsourced POV edits I have recently reverted two extremely POV edits by Elchori01, basically seeking to whitewash Marcos and reduce the well documented history of his corruption and brutality to "allegations". I have clearly explained to Elchori01 on his talk page that his edits were unsourced, and removed well-sourced information. If Elchori01 claims there is any truth in what he writes then he must provide some reliable sources. As I have no wish to engage in an edit war, intervention by others would be very welcome. Rubywine . talk 14:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) It would help a lot if you explained what and how exactly I am trying to "whitewash", as you put it, Marcos, instead of just throwing out allegations. It would also help greatly if you were more civil. Elchori01 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC) For the benefit of all editors, I am copying the original text in the lede and the replacement below. The bolded sections highlighting the differences are mine. This is only part of the disputed block of edits but it is probably the most important one. Also please note that Elchori01 is equally busy over at Benigno Aquino, Jr., downplaying Aquino's role and significance. Original lede: While in power he implemented wide-ranging programs of infrastructure development and economic reform. However, his administration was marred by massive authoritarian corruption, despotism, nepotism, political repression, and human rights violations. In 1983, his government was accused of being involved in the assassination of his primary political opponent, Benigno Aquino, Jr. Public outrage over the assassination served as the catalyst for the People Power Revolution in February 1986 that led to his removal from power and eventual exile in Hawaii. It was later discovered that he and his wife Imelda Marcos had moved billions of dollars of embezzled public funds to the United States, Switzerland, and other countries, as well as into alleged corporations during his 20 years in power. Edit by Elchori01: His regime implemented wide-ranging programs of infrastructure development and economic reform, but was marred by allegations of authoritarianism corruption, despotism, nepotism, political repression, and human rights violations. In 1983, Marcos and his circle of intimates were implicated in the assassination of Benigno Aquino, Jr., an outspoken critic of his regime. Public outrage over the assassination served as a catalyst for the People Power Revolution in February 1986 that led to his removal from power and eventual exile in Hawaii. It is believed that he and his wife Imelda Marcos moved billions of dollars of embezzled public funds to the United States, Switzerland, and other countries. Rubywine . talk 18:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC) It can be difficult trying to summarize a disagreement, and it's likely that I would need to have been examining edits here for some time in order to have a good picture of any issues. However, the above example does not demonstrate a POV edit: the terms used are roughly equivalent, and it would quite reasonable to argue that the removed "as well as into alleged corporations during his 20 years in power" is not terribly helpful (presumably "alleged" is saying that the organizations were fronts to hold ill-gotten funds—but it's not very clear English). I am not expressing an opinion on the merits of the above change, but I am saying that this single example does not appear to warrant a "POV edit" description. I understand there's a big difference between "later discovered that" and "is believed that", but this change is still not sufficient to justify the section heading. I don't think it's worth investigating this example any further because a single change like this essentially does not matter—what counts is the overall picture, and I am now watching and will notice further edits and comments. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Ok John, thanks for your well considered comments. I understand what you're saying. I appreciate the time that you took to look at it. Rubywine . talk 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC) File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.jpg Nominated for Deletion An image used in this article, File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Wording Is it truly correct to say that Marcos put embezzled funds into "alledged corporations"? After all, it is fairly objective to determine whether a corporation has actually been chartered or not. Would it not be better to say that he alledgedly funneled public funds into private corporations, foreign corporations under his control, shell corporations, or something similar? The term "alledged corporations" seems to be both imprecise and inadequate. 75.201.225.45 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC) I agree. I have rewritten the sentence to be more clear. The word "alleged" shouldn't be in there at all, anyway, because all of this is now known to be fact. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Did he die from lupus? According tot his site he did: http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/wpress/articles/lupus-information/lupus-in-the-media-famous-people-living-with-lupus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.154.18 (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Tasaday hoax This article should mention the Tasaday people hoax which Marcos conspired to create. Manuel Elizalde and Marcos fabricated a population of Stone Age people living in the Philippines in the 20th Century. It is even mentioned in the article on the Tasaday people. It ought to be mentioned on this page, in whatever fashion is most appropriate. --across the synapse (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Too much source questioning? I realize that there is never uniform agreement as to the accuracy of official governmental documents, whether from the U.S. government, the Filipino government, or other govermental organizations, and often with good reason. But there are, after all, errors in The New York Times and the Encyclopaedia Britannica as well. But these are pretty solid as reliable sources, and I think that their being questioned should be due to references to other generally-reliable sources, and not just the general concept of "I don't trust any government documents." 2600:1004:B104:6E3A:FC53:3F0:303A:B76E (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Things that would be nice to see 1) Images of campaign posters, such as "Forward with Marcos", showing that he attempted to run U.S.-style campaigns, and even a late one where he had printed up signs stating "Marcos/Tolentino: The Winning Team" based on the "official" canvass of his last "election", showing his love for a pretense of popularity and the rule of law to the very end of his regime. 2) A reference to him being called the "JFK of Asia", or something similar. He was unquestionably called this early in his career, I remember it, but does anyone have a "Reliable Source" for this? 2600:1004:B104:6E3A:FC53:3F0:303A:B76E (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Repository for Compiling References and Citations for the Main Article and Related Subjects Hi all. Starting a repository for reference sources on the subject to aid others in improving the article. Please try to stay with with journalistic, scholarly and academic articles, published books and other reputable sources. Feel free to just add the URLs below. Please arrange them by subject, date, newest articles or publications at the top. Just putting them in a centralized repository meantime, but also for use with related articles on the Martial Law + Family, era, etc. This repository can be used for sourcing information on the other main Wikipedia articles. Please place the urls in "plaintext" next to the article titles instead of linking them using Wikipedia Markup code for easy copy and pasting, and "at a glance" verification on the reliability of the source based on visible URL. -Object404 (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC) General Articles To young Filipinos who never knew martial law and dictatorship http://globalnation.inquirer.net/49932/to-young-filipinos-who-never-knew-martial-law-and-dictatorship It's a great time to be a Marcos http://www.hotmanila.ph/content/ironfist/its-great-time-be-marcos Stopping the Marcoses from erasing their crimes from history http://raissarobles.com/2014/02/09/stopping-the-marcoses-from-erasing-their-crimes-from-history/ From Marcos to Gaddafi: Kleptocrats, Old and New http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ibrahim-warde/gaddafi-mubarak-fortune_b_829390.html “THE MARCOSES AND THE MISSING FILIPINO MILLIONS” Caroline Kennedy, June 1987 http://anywhereiwander.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/“the-marcoses-the-missing-filipino-millions”/ Chronology of the Marcos Plunder http://asianjournalusa.com/chronology-of-the-marcos-plunder-p10909-67.htm Suharto, Marcos and Mobutu head corruption table with $50bn scams http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/indonesia.philippines FM, Erap make it to list of world's most corrupt http://www.philstar.com/headlines/244005/fm-erap-make-it-list-world’s-most-corrupt 2004 Transparency International Global Corruption Report (Ferdinand Marcos listed as #2 - page 23 of report) http://issuu.com/transparencyinternational/docs/2004_gcr_politicalcorruption_en Dream on: Marcoses out to return home to Malacañang http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/616443/dream-on-marcoses-out-to-return-home-to-malacanang Marcoses bared in new WikiLeaks files - "The ostentatious display of wealth by former President Ferdinand Marcos and former First Lady Imelda Marcos during the late strongman's rule in the 1970s left US embassy officials disgusted, according to newly published diplomatic cables released by anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks." http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/04/08/13/marcoses-bared-new-wikileaks-files Children didn’t help Marcos amass wealth, says lawyer http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/602359/children-didnt-help-marcos-amass-wealth-says-lawyer Filipinos Still Wary When It Comes to Marcos http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/11/world/filipinos-still-wary-when-it-comes-to-marcos.html Kit and Larry: The boys in the back room, July, 1970 http://philippinesfreepress.wordpress.com/1970/07/16/kit-and-larry-the-boys-in-the-back-room-july-1970/ add Demonstrations against the Marcoses Anti-Marcos Demonstration, Fifth Avenue, New York City http://ccp.uair.arizona.edu/item/22851 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalbert78 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Ill-gotten wealth, List of Private Businesses and Public Property Illegally Acquired by the Marcos Family and Cronies during administration Govt recovers P1.3-B Marcos Swiss accounts http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/348107/news/nation/govt-recovers-p1-3-b-marcos-swiss-accounts Phl recovers P1.3-B FM Swiss accounts http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/02/13/1289757/phl-recovers-p1.3-b-fm-swiss-accounts Singapore court awards $23M in Marcos money to PNB http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/342344/economy/moneyandbanking/singapore-court-awards-23m-in-marcos-money-to-pnb IMEE MARCOS IN LONDON http://anywhereiwander.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/imee-marcos-in-london/ PCGG: Gov’t, not Marcos victims, owns Monet painting http://globalnation.inquirer.net/81047/pcgg-govt-not-marcos-victims-owns-monet-painting UK tycoon pays PH rights victims $10M #monetPainting http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/518559/buyer-of-monet-in-marcos-class-suit-pays-10m-to-victims Ex-Marcos aide sentenced over sale of Monet painting http://www.rappler.com/nation/47925-ex-marcos-aide-sentenced-over-sale-monet-painting Ex-Marcos secretary on trial for selling $32-M Monet work http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/498295/high-court-affirms-cases-vs-marcos-crony-disinihttp://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/10/17/1246276/ex-marcos-secretary-trial-selling-32-m-monet-work Ex-Imelda Marcos aide on trial in NYC for selling Monet work http://globalnation.inquirer.net/88049/ex-imelda-marcos-aide-on-trial-in-nyc-for-selling-monet-work Imelda Marcos' former secretary convicted in art scheme http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/11/18/13/imelda-marcos-former-secretary-convicted-art-scheme PH to file US suit to retrieve Marcos' Monet painting http://www.rappler.com/nation/49008-ph-us-suit-marcos-monet-painting High court affirms cases vs Marcos crony Disini http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/498295/high-court-affirms-cases-vs-marcos-crony-disini Sandiganbayan orders Marcos crony (Herminio Disini) to return $50-M loot in nuclear plant deal http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/175813/sandiganbayan-orders-marcos-crony-to-return-50-m-loot-in-nuclear-plant-deal Marcoses lose Paoay property http://www.rappler.com/nation/56174-sandiganbayan-junks-marcos-claim Paoay property is ours - Bongbong Marcos http://www.rappler.com/nation/48130-paoay-property-bongbong-marcos ‘Strongest testament to Marcos plunder’ #dandingCojuangco #cocoLevy http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/443305/strongest-testament-to-marcos-plunder 1997 Swiss Federal Supreme Court decision returning $680 million from Marcos' Swiss bank deposits to the Philippines http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_ThirdGGSeminar/Third_GGSeminar_P72-79.pdf United Coconut Planters Bank Cojuangco loses UCPB case http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/442307/cojuangco-loses-ucpb-case-2 Danding loses UCPB case | High court rules gov't owns Cocobank shares http://www.inquirer.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/page-one-07112013.jpg ABS-CBN Meralco Lopezes didn't get back Meralco on silver platter http://www.philstar.com/opinion/164435/lopezes-didn’t-get-back-meralco-silver-platter add Martial Law ANC Video: The role of the media during Martial law https://anc.yahoo.com/video/role-media-during-martial-law-032223053.html Commission on Human Rights putting together ‘Martial Law Files’ http://digitaledition.philstar.com/newspaper/showArticle/40627/share/CHR-putting-together-Martial-Law-Files/ What Martial Law was like http://hotmanila.ph/content/ironfist/what-martial-law-was Marcos diaries: ‘Delusions of a dictator’ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/491835/marcos-diaries-delusions-of-a-dictator Marcos diaries: ‘Hysteria in Manila… I must declare martial law soon’ http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/492327/marcos-diaries-hysteria-in-manila-i-must-declare-martial-law-soon PNoy signs martial law compensation bill into law http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/296511/news/nation/pnoy-signs-martial-law-compensation-bill-into-law PNoy vows to clear hurdles for release of Marcos 'ill-gotten wealth' http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/281025/news/nation/pnoy-vows-to-clear-hurdles-for-release-of-marcos-ill-gotten-wealth add List of Filipinos Killed or Assassinated during the Marcos Administration for political reasons Ferdinand M. Arceo - http://www.bantayog.org/node/47 Godofredo B. Alingal - http://www.bantayog.org/node/36 Benigno Aquino, Jr. William Vincent A. Begg - http://www.bantayog.org/node/57 Artemio S. Celestial, Jr. - http://www.bantayog.org/node/73 Manuel L. Hizon, Jr. - http://www.bantayog.org/node/116 Evelio Javier - http://www.bantayog.org/node/123. Photo: Mr. & Ms. Magazine Tribute to Evelio Javier Special Edition https://twitter.com/wawam/status/437512686276866048/photo/1 Edgar Jopson - http://www.bantayog.org/node/126 | 30 years ago today, Ateneo student leader-turned-rebel Edjop killed in a military raid http://www.interaksyon.com/article/43669/30-years-ago-today-ateneo-student-leader-turned-rebel-edjop-killed-in-a-military-raid http://nusp.org/edjop-curriculum/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalbert78 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Emmanuel F. Lacaba - The "Brown Rimbaud" http://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-44/2-44-brownrimbaud.html add List of Filipinos Tortured or Incarcerated during the Marcos Administration for political reasons Trinidad Herrera - MARTIAL LAW VICTIMS | Arrested, questioned, tortured: 'Are you a Communist?' http://www.interaksyon.com/article/42889/martial-law-victims--arrested-questioned-tortured-are-you-a-communist Eugenio Lopez, Jr. Francisco Luneta - MARTIAL LAW VICTIMS | 'Unbearable torture pushed my brother to try to drown himself' http://www.interaksyon.com/article/43511/martial-law-victims--unbearable-torture-pushed-my-brother-to-try-to-drown-himself Satur Ocampo - MARTIAL LAW VICTIMS | 'Look into my eyes, I'll give you hell' http://www.interaksyon.com/article/42942/martial-law-victims--look-into-my-eyes-ill-give-you-hell Sergio Osmeña, Jr. Etta Rosales - MARTIAL LAW VICTIMS | 'I wasn't thinking of dying, I was fighting for life' http://www.interaksyon.com/article/43594/martial-law-victims--i-wasnt-thinking-of-dying-i-was-fighting-for-life Abraham “Ditto” Sarmiento Jr - Portrait of the Writer as a Valiant Hero http://residents.alphaphibeta.org/2008/03/27/portrait-of-the-writer-as-a-valiant-hero/ add List of Filipino Refugees who fled into exile during the Marcos Administration Eugenio Lopez, Sr. Veronica Pedrosa - Imelda and Me http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeracorrespondent/2011/09/2011918111843217223.html add Economy, Infrastructure add Peace and Order add Legacy add EDSA Revolution Forgotten details from an old story http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/09/22/13/forgotten-details-old-story Behind the ‘miracle’ of Edsa, Randy David http://opinion.inquirer.net/71901/behind-the-miracle-of-edsa Marcos’ chief guard, Irwin Ver, remembers EDSA http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/51403-marcos-irwin-ver-edsa Interview transcript: Lies told about my father, Irwin Ver http://www.rappler.com/video/22618-talkthursday-with-irwin-ver Edsa as party, history, memory of a people http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/580462/edsa-as-party-history-memory-of-a-people add INQBACK: EDSA 28 http://www.inquirer.net/edsa28 Timeline: Feb. 22, 1986, Day One http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/579772/timeline-feb-22-1986-day-one People Power Revolution Timeline, Feb. 23, 1986, Day Two http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/579955/people-power-revolution-timeline-feb-23-1986-day-two Timeline: Feb. 24, 1986, Day Three http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/580163/timeline-feb-24-1986-day-three Day 4: Dictator’s day of humiliation http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/580465/day-4-dictators-day-of-humiliation Why Ninoy still matters 30 years after he was murdered by the Marcos dictatorship http://globalnation.inquirer.net/83549/why-ninoy-still-matters-30-years-after-he-was-murdered-by-the-marcos-dictatorship add Imelda Marcos Before Imelda became an honored guest at Loyola: 7 Ateneans who fought the Marcos regime http://www.interaksyon.com/article/90727/7-ateneo-students-who-fought-against-the-marcos-regime Tale of two welcomes: Imelda, Ateneo and the hero it once insulted http://globalnation.inquirer.net/107668/tale-of-two-welcomes-imelda-ateneo-and-the-hero-it-once-insulted Ateneo apologizes for viral Imelda photos http://www.philstar.com/campus/2014/07/07/1343458/ateneo-apologizes-viral-imelda-photos Is Ateneo’s apology on Imelda Marcos’ visit enough? Netizens weigh in http://technology.inquirer.net/37388/is-ateneos-apology-on-imelda-marcos-visit-enough-netizens-weigh-in My Afternoon with Imelda Marcos http://fortune.com/2014/01/09/my-afternoon-with-imelda-marcos/ add Reverted POV edits I just restored the article to wtmitchell's revision at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&oldid=632664545 - the IP editor that was active since then quite obviously pushing a LaRouche version of reality. That is not to say the text I restored is measuring up to NPOV standards (or at least phrases like "cronies" make me doubtful). Nonetheless, since the edits were so far off it seemed better to summarily revert them and improve the article from where it stands now. Averell (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC) My edit changed "Allegedly accused" to "accused by some", and cited a supporting source. I have reverified that the source cited does support the assertion. I vaguely recall seeing insertion of the word "allegedly" here during a WP:Huggle session, putting Huggle aside to take a closer look at the edit, and making the change. I don't think I looked more closely at this than I needed to in order to see that an assertion to the effect that there was an accusation was supportable, and that an assertion that it has been alleged that there was an accusation would apparently have been silly. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Your edit seems fine to me. Anyway, according to the history I accidentally re-inserted the LaRouche stuff. I'm a bit confused why - it was not my intent.... Averell (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Accomplishments Others' thoughts? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Cleaning up this section as per wp:refactoring. It's just too long, cluttering up the talk page and functions as more or less a "test edit". It's impossible to make an "other's thoughts" reply to such a long copy paste wall of text post. You can take smaller, relevant sections from your previous post which has been archived in the page diff here if you'd like to continue your discussion from last year. My thoughts? -> Any information cited from Marcos himself or his ministry is extremely questionable as reliable sources & and need to be taken with large grains of salt due to heavy propaganda during his administration. They do not qualify under Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source -> "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you'd like to rephrase your question, please use only smaller relevant pieces of info/text that can make constructive comments and replies possible. Please do not re-paste walls of text from the main article, limit it to small sections at a time. Thanks. -Object404 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) As for me, shutting out resources from the Marcos administration itself might mean that we are not being fair in our presentation. It was as if you are concluding that Marcos and his administration had been all liars, their accomplishments fabricated, and thus unreliable. I suggest a presentation of his achievements from every resource available, may it be from the opposition or the administration, because they both had to gain their information somewhere. Also, how about information that only the government (and in this case, the Marcos administration) may have or provide (e.g. census, national budget)? Arius1998 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) conjugal dictatorship listed at Redirects for discussion An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Conjugal dictatorship. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Japanese ethnic descent Do we have a reference that Ferdinand Marcos is of Japanese ancestry? He is listed as such under the categories, and his picture even makes up the collage of 'Japanese Filipinos'. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC) I am like 90% sure that he claimed to be of descent from Japanese pirates who frequented Northern Luzon. If you give me some time to round up some sources on it I can get it to you.Awnman (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC) That would be great. The references I've seen online are very questionable. -Object404 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC) He has Japanese ancestry. 『Filipinos of Japanese Descent: Ferdinand Marcos, Jose Rizal, Lou Diamond Phillips, Imee Marcos, Bong Revilla, Iwa Moto, Mariel Rodriguez』Books LLC [3]--219.111.108.128 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Evidently, however, Marcos admitted in his biography that he traces his ancestry from a 15th century pirate who raided the South China Sea. Whether this pirate was Japanese (wako) he apparently did not say, so it may not be safe to say that he does have Japanese ancestry. Arius1998 (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC) NPOV Doesn't it violate NPOV rules when referring to a former head of state as a kleptocrat? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to rephrase it and to add kleptocracy in the last sentence of the first paragraph? Fjii (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Not really because Marcos was the quintessential kleptocrat and practically defines it - in fact, he was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's greatest thief for years. -110.55.1.225 (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC) This is the general world consensus. For example, according to The Guardian, "Ultimately, he emerges as a laboratory specimen from the early stages of a contemporary epidemic: the global contagion of corruption that has since spread through Africa and South America, the Middle East and parts of Asia. Marcos was a model of the politician as thief." -Object404 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Whitewashing Please do not whitewash Marcos's legacy; make note of his accomplishments, but do not just write over his years as a dictator, numerous human rights abuses, and corruption on the scale of Suharto. Other editors have also noticed this phenomenon, particularly in recent days with a user named Aniseseed, who seeks to label Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos as defenders of democracy along with Park Chung-hee, which is similar to saying that Mao Zedong was responsible for the death of nobody. This is not a matter of political differences with communism and anti-communism or whatnot; it is a matter of truth or lies, and the truth is that Marcos was a dictator. How benevolent can be argued, but please do not ignore the facts. Yny501 (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Whereas the Marcos' and their cronies are probably in a league of their own when it comes to efficient plunder AND continuing to largely enjoy the proceeds of their corruption, it's certainly true that their's was a relatively soft (see what Singapore's great leader Lee Kuan Yew opined) and moderate reign of terror. In sheer relative numbers of victims in the last 100 years they certainly don't compare with the dictators of China, Russia and Korea. However, their toll of victims was not trivial either. This Rappler video might give the likes of User:Aniseseed pause for thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtNHB-F7nVA&list=TLR_ymByiXSmUyNTAyMjAxNg BushelCandle (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC) You mean, de-emphasize his accomplishments and emphasize his alleged sins? Does this conform with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view? Thetruth16 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Inability to Parse, understand historiography, and cite sources A whitewash, as you call it, is only substantiated by providing facts that have sources. You do not have sources for the "numerous human rights abuses, and corruption on the scale of Suharto," because you DO NOT know how those so-called "facts" are being compiled. First of all, there has never been a DOCUMENTED, validated, verified, and court-recognized list of "human rights abuses" victims. If there was, it would have already been published and they most certainly would have a Facebook account or a Wikipedia page. This is NOT to say that the abuses never happened, but a hasty generalization of accusing Marcos for "military abuses" only means you, Yny501, are overlooking or ignoring the roles of Fidel Ramos (Metrocom), Juan Ponce Enrile (Defense), Gregorio Honasan (military), and other generals and military personnel under Marcos who sided with the Aquino government by 1986. Furthermore, Yny501, you already made the mistake of saying things about the article that was never written. Now, you do not even know the distinction between the definition of "democracy" based on political philosophy and "democracy" in relation to freedom itself. You just assume that they are all the same, and you have the liberty to clump them all together, which reveals your ignorance about political philosophy. image uploaded by User:Aniseseed 25 February 2016 image uploaded by User:Aniseseed 25 February 2016 Last but not the least "corruption on the scale of Suharto" is based on the FACTS, and you can read them for yourself, on the World Bank website that cites Merciditas Guttierez and Jovito Salonga as the sources of Marcos' supposed corruption. Note that Guttierez and Salonga were both under the Aquino administration, and these sources are being used by Transparency International in their Report to accuse Marcos of corruption. Most importantly, you cannot provide any source or data independent of Transparency International, Merciditas Guttierez and Jovito Salonga, which means you are citing the very same sources coming from the enemies of Marcos. This is not to say the there was no corruption. But it is strongly suggested according to every human being's right on this planet, based on the UN Declaration of Rights and the respective Constitutions of sovereign states, that a person is innocent until proven guilty. No court has ever proven that Marcos was guilty of corruption. If you had a court case proving his corruption, you would have included it in the Wikipedia page. I am doing research based on the academic standards set by Wikipedia, using sources and historiography. It is advised, EMPHATICALLY, that you and others like you do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniseseed (talk • contribs) 17:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Aniseseed: Before you make another policy-busting edit like this one, please read the whole article at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In particular, please read WP:TPYES and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Ignoring comments and WP:TALKNEW BushelCandle (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Firstly, I would like to point out that I merely edited the article back to its original state before your edits, which suggests that my points would be backed up by other editors before you. Secondly, Marcos being the second most corrupt leader after Suharto in history is listed in the article itself in the legacy section, and if you think that Transparency International is a 'political opponent' and 'enemy' of Marcos, well I can only say that most people would find them a pretty reliable source. Thirdly, as of the most recent edit, Marcos is still listed as a dictator, so I presume that you agree with me on that point. Let us not forget that other dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao considered free speech and free thought their enemies as well, and in general the enemies of dictators are the common people and the truth. There are better dictators and worse ones, but there is not one single dictator in history without human rights abuses. It is that simple. Also, I do not think that most people would suggest the Marcos family as a reliable source, given that they took so much of the Philippines' national budget and put it into their and their cronies' pockets. The People Power Revolution was just that; millions of Filipinos being sick of Marcos's dictatorship and corruption, and thus he was overthrown and democracy restored to the Philippines. Finally, as for what BushelCandle said about Lee Kuan Yew's point of view on Marcos, I agree with what was said, but would also like to point out that Lee would be commonly referred to as a dictator, and as mentioned above dictators are often not the most trustworthy people in general. Politicans are rarely trustworthy, those in power more so, and those in power without fear of having to step down - well, you can see the trend. Though Lee Kuan Yew was probably the most benevolent dictator in history, he was still one, and thus his point of view would not be entirely accurate - I could forsee him agreeing with one person holding power for decades through (at the very least) gerrymandering electoral constituencies to the point of expressing creativity for drawing out supposedly related areas. Yny501 (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC) A final point: what makes you think that you are qualified to comment on me? How do you know that I do not know what democracy and freedom are? Do YOU think that freedom and democracy mean Ronald Reagan carpet bombing civilians and funding terrorists & crony capitalists to overthrow elected governments? (I refrain from using the word 'democratically' here because your version of democracy seems to be different from mine) In that case, yes, I would agree that I do not know what democracy, according to you, is. Then, I can only say that your use of the term is surely more distorted than the shape of Singapore's electoral constituencies. Yny501 (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC) In the Biography of Ferdinand Marcos former president & dictator of the Philippines, There is the following passage about the assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino " On August 21, 1983, opposition leader Benigno Aquino, Jr. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benigno_Aquino,_Jr.> was assassinated at Manila International Airport upon his return to the Philippines after three years in exile in the United States, where he had a heart bypass operation to save his life after Marcos allowed him to leave the Philippines to seek medical care. A few months before his assassination, Ninoy was forced to go back to the Philippines after his student visa was terminated, as a result of being dismissed as a research fellow from Harvard University after Michael Dukakis the governor of Massachusetts, revealed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Ninoy was organizing communist cells in Boston ^[71] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos#cite_note-72>" 1 This passage in fact misquotes the source 72.. The source quoted states that the FBI told Dukakis not the other way around... 2; The source is very unreliable. The author Jose Alejandrino is quoting/chatting about someone who he believes was an under cover CIA operative in Manila at the time. Further on in the book he expresses serious doubts about this persons accuracy and bona fides...Thus Jose Alejandrino in fact undermines the credibility of this story about Benigno Aquino. Aquino was not a communist and it seems very unlikley that he would be entrusted with forming communist party cells in Massachusets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.169.42 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I would suggest somebody block Aniseseed from editing this page for a short period of time to halt the continued deletion of reputable sources and general whitewashing. From the edit history, I can conclude that the whitewashing issue has only become more severe after I pointed it out, and so I would ask for other editors to offer a position on the best way to stop the continued deterioration of the quality of this article by biased editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yny501 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Certainly User:Aniseseed has made some huge changes in the last couple of weeks but I am not sure that the technical means exist for stopping edits by a particular user to a particular article. In particular, the MOS:LEAD has become bloated and very unbalanced. However, not all of the changes have been for the worse. Perhaps you could call for assistance from other editors? (I've made a start here). At the end of the day, how an article reads, will be the consensus of the editors working on it and if just two or three editors sincerely believe that the edits of a particular editor are unbalanced or inadequately sourced, then the simple mechanism of WP:3RR will ensure that our article is not 'whitewashed'. BushelCandle (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Should this article be reverted to an earlier version? If so, where would that be? Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Nice to see you here, Liz! Now that User:Object404 is busy at work bringing some balance back into the article, to revert to the predecessor of [this edit might be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm hopeful that some more editors will take an interest now that I've placed a notice at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&oldid=707395594#Ferdinand_Marcos and a drastic reversion will be unnecessary... BushelCandle (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Hi all. The article is still in large need of repair. User:Aniseseed(talk) removed large swathes of content that were cited by reliable sources and it still needs a lot of work to restore. Apparently Aniseseed does not understand Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. He has also been very antagonistic at his (talk) page and has been engaging in character attacks. Help is much appreciated. -Object404 (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC) When Lee Kwan Yew Said: When Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos sent his minister for trade and industry, Bobby Ongpin, to ask me for a loan of US$300—500 million to meet the interest payments. I looked him straight in the eye and said, 'Will never see that money back'. He is incorrect. The Philippines rescheduled it's debt, but it never defaulted and the subsequent administration honored loans took by Marcos government. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC) You misunderstand his statement. Also, we are still paying for the loans that Marcos made and will be paying for it until 2025 – 59 years after Marcos assumed office and 39 years after he was kicked out. Good job. -Object404 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Historiograpy Let us be academic and rational here. Please. Please notice that the people who edited my posts are the same people who loosely interpret the newspaper articles, which they source, and add adjectives and adverbs to malign Marcos. In other words, their sources are a repetition of newspaper articles that repeat the sources and just exchange it back and forth and then add negative adjectives and adverbs about Marcos. I am asking the Wiki community to intervene. We want Wikipedia to be reliable and substantiated, and not a place where they post TRIAL BY PUBLICITY on a repeated and perpetual basis. I know newspapers and articles are accepted sources in Wikipedia, but I am asking the community to look at the HISTORIOGRAPHY (caps for emphasis, not shouting) of the original sources of all the newspaper and journal articles and not just accept their articles with their face value. Anybody who is an anti-Marcos journalist or writer can say Marcos did this and Marcos did that, especially coming from anti-Marcos newspapers such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer. But if the Wikipedia community actually looked at the historiography of the sources used in Marcos articles, you would see that everything that Marcos allegedly stole comes from two original sources -- 1)the Presidential Commission on Good Government and, 2)the Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines. Both PCGG and the Ombudsman are controlled by anti-Marcos administrations in the Philippines. They then share these court cases that have NEVER (caps for emphasis, not shouting) been resolved in court and pass it off as facts to Transparency International, United Nations, and the World Bank, just to name a few. A civilian who has never been convicted in a court of law is innocent until proven guilty. I am not saying Marcos did not do anything wrong nor do I say he's a saint, but if the names of the editors here on Wikipedia were told they were thieves and then mentioned in a newspaper or CNN, it DOES NOT (emphasis) mean they are guilty of the crime. If that is not an unsubstantiated and brutal attack on a person based on trial by publicity, I don't know what is. We all want Wikipedia to have substantiated facts. I follow what I learned from my doctorate to understand the historiography of the sources. People do not just add adjectives and adverbs, for example "kleptocracy," just because they have a newspaper article. Where's the proof? Go back to the sources, and you only see two PRIMARY (emphasis) sources, again, 1)the Presidential Commission on Good Government and, 2)the Ombudsman of the Republic of the Philippines. Both PCGG and the Ombudsman are controlled by anti-Marcos administrations in the Philippines. Marcos is not a saint. He'll never be one. Nor am I trying to submit his name to the Vatican for sainthood. But for the sake of guidelines of Wikipedia, understand the historiography of the newspaper and journal articles and you will find out there is no primary source document or resolved court case to prove Marcos was or is guilty of ill-gotten wealth. Newspaper articles does not make one a thief, until one is convicted in a court of law. I am not asking the editors to change history. I am asking the Wikipedia community to be ethical and stop accusing a person who has NOT been convicted in any court of law. Facts from Wikipedia should not come from the tyranny of the majority. Me being outnumbered by anti-Marcos "editors" does not make them right. Just because the so-called "editors" keep pounding Wikipedia with lies, it does not mean pack mentality is the guiding principle in establishing Wikipedia articles. I can explain the historiography and provide documented proof about these articles, if and when needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniseseed (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Wrong, Aniseseed. Legal courts have decided Marcos money as being ill-gotten wealth. Here is a new decision from 2014: http://www.rappler.com/nation/47220-pcgg-welcomes-singapore-court-decision-marcos-swiss-funds -Object404 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Since some editors say that Transparency International, Amnesty International, and the United Nations, along with the Philippine Commission on Good Government, and the Ombudsman of the Philippines are good sources, I've attached the images obtained directly from the reports of these groups with highlights to reveal the bad and unreliable sources of the same groups. As all editors can see, TI, AI, and UN, get their sources from PCGG and the Ombudsman, and then newspaper articles add adjectives and adverbs to say this or that about Marcos. Go the the PRIMARY SOURCES (emphasis), and you only have UNRESOLVED cases from the PCGG and the Ombudsman. These two are publicly known anti-Marcos Philippine government agencies. It's like asking the Democrats to sanctify Trump, or the Republicans to raise the name of Clinton. alt language Image of endnote citing Sunday Mail, an Australian newspaper used in Transparency International’s 2004 Global Transparency Report. This is the first image proving the trial by publicity strategy of Transparency International against the Marcoses. Other sources against the Marcoses come from CNN and Time Asia. alt language Image of endnote citing CNN and Time Asia, used in Transparency International’s 2004 Global Transparency Report. This is the second image proving the trial by publicity strategy of Transparency International against the Marcoses. Other sources against the Marcoses come from Sunday Mail, an Australian newspaper. alt language United Nation's Anti-Corruption Toolkit has only one source for Marcos' alleged corruption; an unresolved 1989 RICO claim. alt language Image of sources used in The World Bank’s Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative reveals the reliance on Jovito Salonga and Merceditas Gutierrez, publicly known anti-Marcos, Aquino-backed Filipino government officials, to reveal alleged corruption of Marcos. Since 1986, no Philippine or international court has declared the Marcoses criminally liable for this supposed ill-gotten wealth. alt language Image of sources used in The World Bank’s Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative reveals the reliance on Jovito Salonga and Merceditas Gutierrez, publicly known anti-Marcos, Aquino-backed Filipino government officials, to reveal alleged corruption of Marcos. Since 1986, no Philippine or international court has declared the Marcoses criminally liable for this supposed ill-gotten wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniseseed (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC) By your interpretation, Marcos is not a corrupt dictator because sources that cite his corruption are biased against him. Couldn't the same logic be applied to any other dictator in history? One could say that Western and American imperialists were biased against Stalin, and that there were never mass human rights abuses, massacres and even the occasional genocide in the Soviet Union from 1924-1953. Even today, the Russian Federation has not released all documents pertaining from that time period, and there will never be full proof accepted by all parties that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions. Yet that is the truth. My point being, you are indeed correct (to some extent) that sources citing Marcos's corruption are biased against him, but if an organization is trying to expose the crimes of someone, ostenibly they will be against them, and be accused of bias by some. Transparency International, et al are only against what he did as a sovereign ruler - they are not attacking him on a personal basis or some other way that is clearly biased against Marcos. There is a vast majority of the world that would agree that Marcos is a corrupt dictator, and sometimes I think that the truth and what is right trumps over the need to have impartial sources for every single statement on Wikipedia. Your opinion is not wrong because there are more of us that think that Marcos is a corrupt dictator, but this could also be applied to the Nazis or similar, so I do not think that your reasoning is particularly appropriate. Yny501 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2016 "Hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941, the Japanese simultaneously bombed many places in the Philippines, including Clark Field." Suggest removing the word "simultaneously" and replacing it with the word "also". Why? If it's "hours after the attack", it can't possibly be happening simultaneously. Taintinghighschoolpapers (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC) It seems clear enough to me: After Pearl Harbor was attacked, several places in the Philipines were all attacked at the same time. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Requesting a small edit. "Presidential Commission on Good Government,[48][49][50] a government agency created by the Aquino Government which by itself was affected by corruption scandals after it was alleged that officials wanted a cut of Marcos' assets and were "milking" sequestered assets.the Marcos family had plundered $5–10 billion USD". The sources [49] and [50] links events that happened in 2008. It seems bizarre to use these as sources of the alleged corruption by the PCG, I suggest creating a new topic about the PCG rather than clutter the Ferdinand Marcos article with these claims. They also break NPOV rules as well. StriderVM (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Agree. -Object404 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Presentation of GDP per capita during Marcos Era @Object404: Ok I agree - GDP per capita vs GDP reflects income growth per individual. Speaking of turning points, the crucial turning point happened in: - 1965 (election as president) - 1972 (martial law declaration) - 1980 (lifting of martial law), - 1983 (Ninoy assasination). - 1985 (recession year, just before he was removed) Emmanuel de Dios's GDP per capita of less than 1% growth calculation from 1972 till the end of Marcos term can't be right. Here's the GDP per data straight using World Bank as source: 1972: $211.4 1985: $565.7 Over that 13-year period, GDP per capita grew by 167%. Simply divide $565 by $$211.4 minus 1. On an annualized basis, the growth is 7.9% (based onsimple average, 167% divided by 13 years is actually 12.84%). Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=PH&page=6 If you want, we can use that 7.9% growth. But perhaps it's better to have a summary of the overall performance which considers economic peaks and recessions. If we can present the GDP data in the turning points above, then that will be more informative. So I suggest that we remove his citation of less than 1% GDP per capita growth rate from start martial law to 1985. Regarding when the economy recovered, it's better to let the data speak for itself rather than rely on an opinion column that has an anti-marcos bias. We must be careful when opinion columnist distort statistics for political agenda, or worse, when they use an outright erroneous statistical number. Thetruth16 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Debt as a result of over borrowing? It's not that simple.... @Object404: At the end of 1980, Philippine debt amounted to $17.2 billion whereas GDP is almost double the amount of debt at $32.45 billion. Because of U.S.'s inflation was out-of-control, former U.S. Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker raised interest rate to a record 20% in 1981. Philippine interest rates are always higher than the U.S. rates. If interest accumulates at 20% per year, then debt will be double in 5 years if don't run budget surplus to pay-off the debt, all other things being equal. Right now, the US Fed rate is under 1%. The external factors in the 1980's were extremely challenging to the Marcos administration, and the fact that the Philippines didn't default on its debt unlike many latin american economies during the same period says a lot (see Latin American debt crisis). To prove that Marcos' over-borrowed to support high levels of growth in the 1970's, we need to data which shows that the Marcos administration was running irresponsibly huge budget deficits as a percentage of GDP during the period. Many journalist and critics just conveniently a claim that the debt of $26 billion in 1985 is a result of debt-driven growth in the 1970's, when in fact debt-to-GDP ratio is OK in the 1980, and there are more plausible explanations why debt reached $26b in 1985 like record interest rate levels in early 80's and government intervention and spending to fight the 1984-1985 economic recession, which a policy prescription of Keynesian Economics adhered to by most governments. Suggestion: Instead of just picking "debt driven" growth from potentially biased local journalist and ministers from subsequent administration, it'd be better to cite less biased international sources and of course, the data itself, to expand the discussion on debt. The discussion can include budget deficit (as a percentage of GDP) during Marcos' administration. Thetruth16 (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Rappler is considered to be a reliable source under Wikipedia rules . Just because sources are local does not mean they are biased. -Object404 (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Thetruth16 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Ok, we just place the different sources side-by-side then.