Jump to content

Talk:Imelda Marcos/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Comparison

Is Imelda Marcos the precendent for the wife of the corrupt leader who spends zillions on high fashion while natives struggle to bring food to their tables. Marcos' name has been used in comparison with Michele Duvalier and Michelle Obama. 69.143.110.86 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest. 96.41.43.212 (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The inspiration for Michelle Obama? That's hilarious.--Bridgecross (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote section?

Why is there a quote section? Mark Twain does not even have one. This seems like a bit of adulatory fluff not needed for the article.96.41.43.212 (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

exclamation mark  All the discussions above this point were removed without any explanation in July 2015. I have 'manually' reverted those two(2) edits, so it doesn't seem to have been by mistake. 220 of Borg 06:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of name

I wonder why she is referred to by her first name Imelda and not her last name Marcos through the article ? Iselilja (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right that it should be changed. Why not be bold and change it yourself? Be careful, however, not to introduce ambiguities; in sentences which could also be about her husband or son, you'll need to include some clue as to which Marcos you're referring to. There's a discussion on proper use of names in biographical articles at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. --Alexbook (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
exclamation mark  Note that Theparties (talk · contribs) is a now blocked sockpuppet of indef-banned 23prootie (talk · contribs)220 of Borg 07:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Iselilja: I was wondering that myself, but when I boldly fixed the issue, [1] I was reverted! [2] . See #Requested move 21 August 2015 below for the 'aftermath'. 220 of Borg 07:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Imeldific (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos → Imelda – Because...

Imeldific (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

— Imeldific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hatting courtesy me! 220 of Borg 06:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 Comment:. My edit here and move proposers edits here (basically blindly reverting my edit without any explanation) are related to the naming issue and should be of interest. 220 of Borg 06:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem, but I still think it was an improvement! 220 of Borg 07:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Close as frivolous the number of historical figures generally known by first name only is tiny and Mrs Marcos isn't one of them. An article called 'Imelda', could be about anything, even the present redirect is probably wrong 'Imelda' should go to the name, the title there btw could be wrong, since the name is only originally Italian and includes a few places etc..Pincrete (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 Comment: @Pincrete: Curiouser and curiouser! The redirect was, for over 9.5 years until 23 March 2015‎, exactly as you said. It was changed by Luvcookies (talk · contribs) who was a blocked as a sock of an indef banned editor. Very interesting! - 220 of Borg 12:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 Comment: № 2 - I have re-directed Imelda back to Imelda (Italian given name), so at least it no longer goes to Marcos. Wait, do I hear a Duck quacking? 220 of Borg 12:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 Comment: № 3 - Those ducks are now deafening! I was wondering what the username 'Imeldific' was about, see Wiktionary:Imeldific - 220 of Borg 12:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Fairly trivial point in the circumstances, but while we are about it, does it make sense to change Imelda (Italian given name) to Imelda (name) or plain Imelda? Unsure of protocol here.Pincrete (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I submitted a technical request to reverse that not-discussed move, see here. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sorry, Pincrete. WP:NCP and WP:NATURAL would discourage such parenthetical disambiguation using just the first name, especially when "Imelda Marcos" is fairly often used name per many books and news articles, according to Google. And the proposed title violates WP:COMMONNAME, which says ambiguous names are discouraged, even when commonly used. George Ho (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
George Ho, sorry, but just to be clear 'Imelda' now redirects to Imelda (Italian given name) (a list of uses of "Imelda", most, but not all of which are human names). My suggestions were to change Imelda (Italian given name) to either Imelda (name) or plain Imelda, ie the name/dab becomes the primary topic of 'Imelda', there being unlikely to emerge another candidate for 'one word' primary.
I think the original name change proposal (Marcos, which I also oppose) is now 'dead in the water'. Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
My mistake; modifying my post. George Ho (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Imelda which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Views

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Imelda Marcos/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeldific (talk • contribs) 06:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • She is categorised as being a Visayan, but the article only mentions Spanish descent. Seems something is missing, since she is clearly not only Spanish. Perhaps there could also be a link to Filipino people of Spanish ancestry.
  • "She briefly dated Benigno Aquino, Jr." When?
  • " Imee, Ferdinand Jr., aka Bongbong, and Irene, and an adopted girl named Aimee." Could we get birth dates?
  • There seem to be more images at Commons, none that can be used?[4]
  • What is her first language? Spanish or some native language?
  • "she was involved in altercations, including one with The Beatles[18] and another with Dovie Beams" Could these be elaborated?
  • "an assassination attempt against" What was the motive?
  • "She also organized the" and "She also initiated". Seems repetitive with two consecutive sentences beginning with "she also".
  • You need page numbers for books.
  • "member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa" You could explain what this is.
  • "US$51-million" Needs spacing, same with "US$60-million" and other places.
  • "Although she declined buying the Empire State Building because she felt it was "too ostentatious."[50][51]" I don't think you can say "although" there, but not sure.
  • There is some overlinking of words.
  • "In 1988, Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos, together with Adnan Khashoggi," What was their relation?
  • " fortune came from Yamashita's Gold." Briefly explain what this is.
  • "Monet’s “L’Église et La Seine à Vétheuil” (1881), Alfred Sisley’s “Langland Bay” (1887), and Albert Marquet’s “Le Cyprès de Djenan Sidi Said” (1946)." These names should be written in italics.
  • "Imelda is a fashion and pop culture icon" Where?
  • "known as the "Steel Butterfly." Why?
  • The intro seems a bit short for a article this size, it should summarise the entire article.
  • That's all for now, you there, Imeldific? FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Fixes look nice, though shouldn't "She has a collection of over a thousand pairs of shoes" be in past tense? FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a technicality but okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeldific (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, she doesn't own them anymore it seems, anyhow, all looks good to me now, so will pass. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2016 (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) 06:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Citation Law

The whole intro stating how she is the smartest and most educated and talented person in the world is entirely un-cited. Is this not a violation of wikilaw?2001:558:6012:5A:565:ABEA:FCDE:5BBD (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Imelda → Imelda Marcos

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: Imelda → Imelda Marcos (Search)(Images)(Books)(News)(Scholar)

no thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Imeldific

You are removing reliable sourced content from this article, without any respect for consensus or rules. Your user name and previous edits make it pretty clear that you are here with an agenda. I suggest that you learn a little about consensus, and communicate before attempting to remove content. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 removed this
She was reelected. "Bongbong Marcos, Imelda and family pray for 'poll integrity'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. May 15, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
"Imelda, Imee poised for re-election in Ilocos Norte". ABS-CBN News. May 9, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.
"The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. May 7, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Productions in the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco and the Seattle Repertory Theater were held during the 2016-17 season."Here Lies Love to Play West Coast's A.C.T." Playbill. April 15, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.
"Here Lies Love to Play Seattle Rep". Playbill. April 25, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.

Imeldific (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
12:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
09:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
07:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You posted four diffs, in which I removed content from my own talk page. What is your point? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, I was trying to get your attention. The content you are removing are well-sourced and relevant to the historicity of the article. She won the election fair and square and she is the subject of cultural events around the world. My username may be unwise, it was not done to vandalise nor hurt the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imeldific (talk • contribs) 08:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC) — Imeldific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
as per WP:BRD I have reverted your BOLD edit. Now the burden is yours to obtain consensus for your proposed changes. Your edits are obvious lacking neutrality. You need to address every change you wish to make. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Also...you failed in your attempt to have the article moved to "imelda" - stop changing the name on the article. She is known as "imelda" in the Philippines, the rest of the world knows her as "imelda marcos" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420,

  1. She just won the election. Please look at the article. ("Imelda, Imee poised for re-election in Ilocos Norte". ABS-CBN News. May 9, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.)
  2. The Here Lies Love section has been there for years. It is only getting an update. ("Here Lies Love to Play West Coast's A.C.T." Playbill. April 15, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016., "Here Lies Love to Play Seattle Rep". Playbill. April 25, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.)
  3. The words "kleptocrat" and plunder are mentioned in the heading on the last paragraph with better flow and logic
  4. The are too much categories in the bottom which violates WP:Overcategorization.
  5. The use of her mononym "Imelda" has been mixed but there are references that use it alone without her married name both from inside and outside the Philippines. (Ellison, Katherine. Imelda, Steel Butterfly of the Philippines, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988. ISBN 0-07-019335-5.)

Anymore?Imeldific (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


She won an election. Great. Put just that back, with reliable sources. Plunder and Kleptocrat are what she is best known for worldwide. Don't try and hide it later in the article. It deserves to be in the lead. Remove other less notable categories. It doesn't matter what she uses. You tried to move the article and were told no. The name used within the article and the article name should be the same.

Oh. you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Single-purpose account Wikipedia:Advocacy WP:NOTSOAPBOX Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It is in the lead. It is in the fourth paragraph. Please read it first. Imeldific (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The controversial stateent has been moved to the top of the article. There. Imeldific (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Certain people have different naming conventions. See Che Guevarra, Catherine de' Medici, Dante Alighieri and Leonardo da Vinci
That's good and a step in the right direction, thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecowboy420(talk • contribs) 08:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome.Imeldific (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, please read this whole section. Imeldific (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it is good that the sources are getting scrutinised, but the tone here seems just a tad too aggressive. This could easily be handled without drama. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is that the article should reflect a worldwide view of Imelda Marcos, worldwide she is best known for corruption, theft, greed and involvement in the killing of Benigno Aquino - the article should reflect that and focus on what she is best known for and avoid cruft. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This edit [11:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)] addresses that. Can we agree on adding this now? Imeldific (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

DO NOT USE MONONYM:

There is a clear consensus against referring to Imelda Marcos by the mononym "Imelda" in Wikipedia's voice.

Imeldific support the mononym.

Spacecowboy420, Pincrete, Caeciliusinhorto, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Ryk72, and BlackcurrantTea opposed the mononym.

Editors determined that many of the sources referenced here referred to the subject as "Imelda Marcos" first before referring to her by "Imelda".

Cunard (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The ongoing dispute above is simmering into an WP:edit war. Please HELP! Imeldific (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

What are we supposed to comment on? I suggest a rewrite giving a neutral account of the dispute. Pincrete (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • There was/is a dispute about the points enumerated below.
  1. She just won the election. Please look at the article. ("Imelda, Imee poised for re-election in Ilocos Norte". ABS-CBN News. May 9, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.)
  2. The Here Lies Love section has been there for years. It is only getting an update. ("Here Lies Love to Play West Coast's A.C.T." Playbill. April 15, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016., "Here Lies Love to Play Seattle Rep". Playbill. April 25, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.)
  3. The words "kleptocrat" and plunder are mentioned in the heading on the last paragraph with better flow and logic
  4. The are too much categories in the bottom which violates WP:Overcategorization.
  5. The use of her mononym "Imelda" has been mixed but there are references that use it alone without her married name both from inside and outside the Philippines. (Ellison, Katherine. Imelda, Steel Butterfly of the Philippines, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988. ISBN 0-07-019335-5.)
It seems to be settled mostly, but it might not yet be final. Imeldific (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
We record that she was often referred to by the mononym, and use it in quotes. We DON"T use it ourselves in 'our voice'. The present effect is of an absurd teenage fan-site, not an encyc. entry for a notable political figure. Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If the Oprah Winfrey article uses the full name, then I see no reason for this article to use a mononym. Mononyms should be used when the full name is almost never used, or relatively unknown (such as Madonna), while Imedla Marcos us referred to by her full name very often. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Ditto 'Elvis'. Royals, known by their titles and historical figures (Dante?), whose surnames are scarcely ever used are an exception. The answer to overcategorization, is to remove those for which she is NOT mainly known (inc. relatively trivial awards?), which are 'non-defining'. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This article falls under Philippine naming customs which has a tradition of using mononyms for public figures, i.e. Dolphy, Karylle, Babalu, Mocha, Jopay, Kyla, and Pokwang. Imeldific (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Even international publications treat her mononymously. Imeldific (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is from My afternoon with Imelda Marcos. Fortune. January 9, 2014:

"Along with the regal side comes the mothering — Imelda strives to portray herself as a champion of the poor and downtrodden. She’s a success in politics selling that message. Imelda is now serving a second term as a congresswoman from Ilocos Norte, her late husband’s province, and one of the nation’s most important. In that role, she has built 11 “Mothering Centers” in the region, facilities that dispatch ambulances to rescue poor farmers who fall ill, and provide job counseling and legal advice. And she claims to be funding the centers with her own money. The Mothering Centers, says Francisco “Kit” Tatad, the Minister of Public Information for 11 years under the late Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, and now a prominent columnist and political advisor, are a reminder of the creativity Imelda displayed as First Lady. She strove to promote the nation’s native products, and found extremely original ways to do it. Tatad took me on a Sunday tour of the Coconut Palace, an Imelda creation that is currently the workplace for the Vice President. He recalls that Imelda virtually served as “foreman” on the project, supervising every detail of design and construction. The idea was to show the versatility of one of the nation’s leading agricultural crops. The entire mansion, consisting mainly of six-side rooms, is made from coconut wood, including the columns, moldings, shutters, even the furniture."

Worth noting that in that article the title, first two mentions, and final mention all call her "Imelda Marcos", not simply Imelda. The mononym is not at all universally used. And many of the sources used in the article (including this, this, this, and this) never refer to her as simply "Imelda", always "Marcos", "Imelda Marcos", "Mrs Marcos" etc. Also worth noting that all of your examples of mononymous Filippinos are stage names of entertainers; Imelda Marcos is primarily known for her politics. I'm not at all convinced that just because there are a number of entertainers with mononymous stage names that it's therefore common for all public figures, any more than I am by the argument that the existence of Beyonce, Eminem, Madonna and Prince demonstrates that prominent Americans are usually monomymous and therefore we should be writing articles about Hillary and Donald. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
She was an entertainer prior to serving as First Lady and she continued to be so for 12 years when she was not in office between 1998 until 2010. She also qualifies on a first name recognition on par with Dante, Leonardo and Catherine. Imeldific (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that Marcos was an entertainer; I'm just pointing out that that is not what she is known for primarily. Our article barely mentions her entertainment career. If she did perform under the mononym "Imelda", that would be worth mentioning, but it wouldn't justify referring to her solely as Imelda throughout the articles.
As for "first name recognition on a par with Dante, Leonardo, and Catherine": firstly, that's quite the claim, and I would argue that she definitely doesn't globally, though it might be true in the Phillipines; secondly, all three of these examples come from a time before modern naming conventions (and surnames) had properly developed. Neither "da Vinci" or "degli Alighieri" is a surname; "da Vinci" refers to Leonardo's place of birth, and "degli Alighieri" is a patronymic. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Excellent analysis. It is also worth pointing out that there is no such policy or guideline on Wikipedia as ' Philippine naming customs'; As I said in a recent edit-summary, we have to follow WP:MOS, and particularly, WP:MONONYM: which exceptions provided are in no way similar to the subject here. I have tailored the article's naming conventions accordingly. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 14:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:SAMESURNAME, parts of the article will still need to use her first name only to distinguish her from Ferdinand, Imee, and Bongbong. Imeldific (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
From:WP:SAMESURNAME "When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing.." ie, occasionally it may be necessary to use both (or him/her?). Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Just So. Muffled Pocketed 11:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Ryk72, the main issue appeared to be whether Imelda Marcos should be mainly referred to by her 'mononyn' ie 'Imelda', as was the case when the RfC was called, in most instances now the full name is used. Pincrete (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes; the RfC was merely an attempt to blindside the consensus of all but the one editor, who then proceeded to edit-war the mononym back in, resulting in his getting blocked. Hi, Imeldific. Muffled Pocketed 09:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • On the question of the use of the mononym in Wikipedia's voice, our policies & guidelines would appear to be clear (and to have been clearly articulated by Pincrete above). While "Imelda" may be sufficient for unambiguous identification inside the Philippines, it is certainly not sufficient outside that nation. Each of the sources mentioned above as using the mononym appears to make an initial use of the whole name. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ryk72, Pincrete. I'm ignoring the other one. From WP:SAMESURNAME. The key clauses are bolded.Imeldific (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to the people by given names for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing.


For example, in the text of an article on Ronald Reagan:

Correct: Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately; Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.
Correct: The Reagans arrived separately; Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.
Incorrect:    Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately; Ronald Reagan by helicopter and Nancy Reagan by car.

In the text of an article about the Brothers Grimm:

Correct: Jacob Grimm was 14 months older than his brother, Wilhelm.
Incorrect:    Jacob Grimm was 14 months older than his brother, Wilhelm Grimm.
Prev left unsigned by Imeldific
Disingenuous to day the least. As your example makes sufficiently clear, that stricture only applies when naming two people of the same surname consecutively. This rarely applies in this article, where you want to use her given name throughout. In any case, that also does not preclude referring to her without a name: she, her, Mrs, etc. BTW I have removed your tendentious tag from the article as there is currently no consensus that neutrality is disputed. Except by you. Muffled Pocketed 10:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:TITLESINTITLES, Using Mrs. is incorrect.Imeldific (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Per the fact that we are not discussing a title within a title, that's irrelevant. Muffled Pocketed 10:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, it was WP:HONORIFICS, Mrs. is incorrect.Imeldific (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Please, no need to apologise for being incorrect. Again. Does it go on to say, "The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which is not relevant – even if true"... Yes. Yes it does. Muffled Pocketed 11:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:SAMESURNAME still applies because using "Marcos" will lead to confusion whether a sentence is talking about Imelda not Ferdinand, Bongbong or Imee? Imeldific (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Imeldific, The article does not currently use 'Marcos', except where it is unambiguosly one or the other, it uses full name. In which specific instances at present do you believe there is any ambiguity? How is that ambiguity resolved by the gratuitous use of the mononym alone? Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete

Imelda Marcos was born in Manila but later moved to Tacloban prior to World War II after the death of her mother during her childhood. She later returned to Manila in 1950 to pursue a career as a singer and as a beauty queen. In 1954, she married Ferdinand Marcos, who became president of the Philippines on November 9, 1965 and later declared martial law on September 21, 1972. As First Lady, Marcos built developments in and around the metropolis of Manila while spending much of her time abroad on state visits and shopping sprees.

Which Marcos? This sentence makes it appear it is about her husband

Imelda Marcos served as First Lady after Ferdinand Marcos was elected on November 9, 1965 as the 10th President of the Philippines.

Violation of WP:SAMESURNAME. Imeldific (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Which Marcos was First Lady? Is there a side to Ferdinand we've never heard about? In some instances I suggest changing Marcos to she.Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, Pincrete, you do that. I can't.Imeldific (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Muffled Pocketed 11:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Please, Muffled , I think you know. Imeldific (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
It's done anyway (two 'she's) and makes for better flow IMO. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)−
@Pincrete: Can I suggest changing the 'First Lady' edit so as to have her name opening the section, rather than 'she'? I believe that's the MoS standard. Battery dying though! Muffled Pocketed 12:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Imeldific (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, agree better, done, losing 'his' surname. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC) ps I've done a quick consistency check, 'Marcos' alone is now only used for her, he is always referred to as 'FM' or 'husband F' or similar.Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete, the "Early life" section should only use Romuáldez not Marcos because she was not married to Ferdinand yet.Imeldific (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The 'born' name is in the lead, and if put instead in 'early life', it would be per "Thatcher was born Margaret Hilda Roberts on etc". IMO it would simply be confusing to use a different name, which is anyway used once only, therafter 'she'. Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete, Ryk72, Caeciliusinhorto, Muffled, there is going to be a major change in the article, please do not revert. Imeldific (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah...? Muffled Pocketed 14:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Muffled Read this, it has to do with references/sourcing and copy editing/prose. Imeldific (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, prose and sources anyway. How'd you mean? Muffled Pocketed 14:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Muffled. Problematic sources such as The Daily Mail and Rappler are removed and something else. Read the edit first before reverting. Imeldific (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Imeldfic: Well, good. The Daily Mail sucks wads. But what about it? Surely that FA filing was last month? Muffled Pocketed 15:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Muffled. Just wait. Imeldific (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Imeldific, I can probably speak for the other editors when I say that I would NEVER revert without reading and checking. btw - Featured article candidates - 'Icon?' Half the present refs don't support this, (being at papal investiture?), and I doubt that anyone in their '80s (M or F) is still looked on as a 'pop and fashion icon' anywhere. Fortuna, I quite like the Daily Mail, well at least, my cat does. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Fish skins come to those wth taste! Muffled Pocketed 15:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete, you'd be surprised. Call it the 'Betty White effect.' She is still very much a 'pop and fashion icon' in Philippines at her age. Imeldific (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Then find RS that support that, present ones don't. Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete, they're going to be added. Tomorrow. Muffled has a habit of reverting my edits. Imeldific (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
No: I have a habit of reverting unsourced, trivial cruft which is based on original research, opinion, or rumour. I also have a habit of pointing out that edit-warring is not confined ti twenty-four hour periods  :) Muffled Pocketed 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pincrete, the user above, Muffled, is going to trigger an WP:edit war if the new sources are added. Waiting for a day is just playing it safe. See you both tomorrow. Imeldific (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Discuss the sources on the Talk Page- that's what it's for. And please remember to assume we are all here to build, rather than detract from, the project. Muffled Pocketed 16:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Muffled, patience is a virtue. Imeldific (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Not on Wikipedia. Muffled Pocketed 16:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Muffled, Sorry. Imeldific (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Imee and Bautista

I've just removed a large chunk of what appears to be WP:OR or off-topic about Imee Marcos. At the same time I wonder what Imelda's role was alleged to be (if any) in Bautista's attempted sale of the art-works?

Here is the removed Imee text, which contains some useful refs, but which don't support any connection to Imelda:

Early in 2013, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists listed her daughter Imee as one of the people involved in undisclosed offshore banking.[1][2][failed verification][3] Imee had been helping her mother hide their wealth in the British Virgin Islands.[4][5][failed verification]

References

  1. ^ Philippines May Curb the Pursuit of Marcos's Wealth. The New York Times. January 2, 2013.
  2. ^ Suharto, Marcos and Mobutu head corruption table with $50bn scams. The Guardian. March 26, 2004.
  3. ^ Ferdinand Marcos' Daughter Tied to Offshore Trust in Caribbean. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. April 3, 2013.
  4. ^ "Secret Files Expose Offshore's Global Impact". International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Retrieved April 4, 2013.
  5. ^ "BIR chief ready to investigate Pinoys with offshore accounts"., Philippine Consortium for Investigative Journalism. June 15, 2013.
Imelda allegedly ordered Vilma Bautista to sell the paintings in order to hide her family's tracks. There seemingly is no evidence but the paintings were once missing and the last owner was Imelda. Imeldific (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps locating a better source for Imelda's involvement would be a good solution ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Good luck with that! They are the best people in hiding their wealth. She is *not* involved. Winks. Imeldific (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

And lo! the drama unfolded

and 'twas undermighty Pincrete, Spacecowboy420, what's the current status of the article would you say... how beneficial the changes? I ask as per the suggestion of an administrator, who said: "In my opinion, one of the participants in Talk:Imelda Marcos#Request for comment might try to summarize what the consensus is so far. Imeldific should listen to the feedback. They should back off on the items where it is clear they won't get any support." So, a 'state of the nation' would be good. Muffled Pocketed 11:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a short 24 hour editing block, didn't speak quite loudly enough...
I'd suggest that Imeldific might want to listen a little more, and type a little less. Listening is the number one method for avoiding editing blocks or *IDEA!* article bans. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
But- blimey! with an article ban, what would he DO here...? Muffled Pocketed 12:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely, but I live in hope that he might find something to edit that he doesn't have an emotional attachment to, and actually make some neutral/constructive edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is under this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imelda Marcos/archive3, please read the eligibility/rules before aking comments. The references are currently being revamped.Imeldific (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes... but you're not just formatting refernaces are you. See how many times Pincrete has caught you out, adding this, changing that... even up to your old monomystic tricks... Muffled Pocketed 12:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
There was already a collaboration with Pincrete as of this. Imeldific (talk) 12
16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Imeldific, I read your edit summary and was about to say "fair enough" it's not content, it's just references...then I actually looked at the edits and saw that it was indeed content that had been changed. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete removed some paragraphs. There was already agreement with those. Imeldific (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Spacecowboy420, I think it was quite a number of reverts too far. Imeldific, whilst making ref changes, you are creating cite errors and you continue to make 'sneaky' content changes. Is it notable that she is called the 'Steel butterfly', or is it only notable if we include an (unnecessary and WP:OR ) explanation? Is she 'Marcos' or 'Imelda Marcos' throughout, when no clarification is necessary? The sources explicitly stated that her role in both fashion and arts patronage were controversial, but you apparently don't want her reputation as a fashion icon tarnished. I still don't have any conviction that your edits are REALLY motivated by a wish to create a neutral article, though I agree that many of your recent ref changes were legit. ......... ps Imeldific, please don't name me so frequently 15 messages yesterday, 7 already today, I do have other pages and other things to do. Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right, Pincrete. I must admit, I just looked at the previous history of the other editor and assumed that all the edits were of the same nature. Of course, please restore any of your content that I removed unintentionally. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420 and Pincrete: Thanks both, I think this is a good compromise, and a step forward- removed enough cruft and blurb without going too far back, whilst allowing for further filleting. FA here you come Muffled Pocketed 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, I went back to the last version without errors, that means Imeldific will have to redo his ref changes, if he wishes. Fortuna, removing the fancruft is only stage 1 of giving a concise account of what has been written, I doubt if I'll be around to help there, (have you heard of the only here for the RfC get-out clause!)Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Ha! And since the RfC was rather a pig's ear from the beginning, fair play on your stamina for sticking it out that long! Muffled Pocketed 13:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Under construction

The article is current under construction. Please don't revert.Imeldific (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Imelda mononym

From WP:OTHERNAMES

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Likewise, even though Color's title omits the "u", Orange (colour)'s title does not.

All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term. Note that the exact capitalization of the article's title does not affect Wikipedia search, so it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links; see Naming conventions (capitalization).

Piped links are often used in article text to allow a subject with a lengthy article title to be referred to using a more concise term where this does not produce ambiguity.

Imeldific (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The first name alone has been used by a variety of authors in WP:reliable sources:

Imeldific (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Imeldific, are you seriously suggesting that a reader needs to be told that Imelda Marcos is sometimes called 'Imelda'? The purpose of 'other names' is (as given above), the reader might not understand Gdańsk=Danzig, might not understand that J.F.K. or L.B.J. = you know who. The pathetic attempt to get WP on 'first name terms' with Mrs Marcos has been solidly rejected in the RfC above. Previous attempts to have categories use the mononym have been rejected. Stop wasting everybody's time. I've tried to work with you and defended some edits of yours, but the continuous 'sneak-editing' and mis-application of P&G has long ago become tiresome. Your sources prove nothing, it isn't even an other name, and most of the sources use the full name on first use. Pincrete (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Please read Che, Iman, and Lula
From WP:reliable sources:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, If RS could be found (not you synthing from primary sources), that among certain (local?) audiences she is/has been frequently referred to by the mononym, I would have no objection as part of a 'image' or similar section. These are not that, they are mainly using the full name on first use and the first name on subsequent uses, that is not a mononym. Shall I find 1000 instances of Blair being called Tony after first use? Michelle Obama being called Michelle after first use? You are digging a hole for yourself as a result of this obsession that a significant percentage of the world know her by first name. They don't, they didn't even when she was 20* more famous than she is now and inclusion in the lead is simply unnecessary, it clarifies nothing. Her political role and extravagant use of what was probably other people's money is a great deal more notable than a few uses of the first name. Pincrete (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Michael Jackson was constantly referred to as "the king of pop" and I'm confident there are plenty of sources to support that name. Should we remove all instances of his name from all articles, and replace them with "the king of pop" ? It's fucking simple: When someone is known only by a mononym, and their full name would cause confusion, we use their mononym. For example, I guess that most people are unaware that Ronaldo de Assis Moreira is Ronaldinho so we use the monomym. We don't use Imelda Romuáldez Marcos for the article, we use Imelda Marcos because it causes the least confusion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Use of first name after introduction with full name is not using a mononym, it is a standard courtesy, especially for women. Shall we also bother to explain that she is sometimes called Mrs Marcos? Or is the use so obvious as being insulting to the reader? Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest using "Marcos" to describe her for the majority of the article, with an occasional use of "Imelda Marcos" on sentences that also refer to her husband. The Denis Thatcher article is a pretty good example of how to avoid naming confusion in a similar situation. There is of course no need at all to explain that someone called Imelda Marcos is also known as Imelda. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, explaining 'sometimes called Imelda' is what the current disagreement is about. The article at present mostly uses both names for her to avoid the inherent confusion. I don't object to that. I think use of forename throughout for her is now settled against such use. Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As it should be. What are the feelings about changing some of the instances of "Imelda Marcos" to just "Marcos", in situations that it wouldn't cause confusion with her husband? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I seem to remember doing exactly that myself (here, possibly) but of course that was naused up by obsessive fanboyism. It's definitely the way forward though. Muffled Pocketed 10:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Fortuna, yes you did change and yes it was slyly changed back. I don't feel strongly either way about use of both names or surname only for her. Surname is standard, but I can see the argument for using both names most of the time. I only object to wasting time with spurious, synth-ed arguments and 'sneak edits'. Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't agree with the last name only because it is ambiguous and confusing. Imeldific (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete, you don't disagree with using the full name? Imeldific (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You ask the question after making the edit, even though you knew there are objectors, and after inserting a ridiculous, completely unsourced footnote that 'Imelda was universally known by her first name'. MOS is quite explicit, it is good enough for Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton and 1000s of others.Pincrete (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
She was. Imeldific (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So you say (with tedious repetition). What does it mean? Her friends called her this? Even if it were true that the general (non-local) public called her this (which it clearly isn't), that does not override MOS on the subject of a noted political figure. We all know who Elvis, Oprah etc. are, but they are not mononyms and the informal use of their first name is obvious. It is a synthed, pointless, attempt to imply that the majority of the world and WP is/was on a first name familiarity with her. They weren't and aren't and no sources say they were. Attempting to get this article up to FA is absolutely pointless until this basic matter is settled. She gets the same treatment as any other political figure/ political wife. Pincrete (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact, Oprah and Elvis are so widely used to refer to Winfrey and Presley respectively that both of them redirect as the clear primary topic for those names, and yet in neither of their articles does the lead say "also known as Oprah" or "also known as Elvis". Even if we accepted that Marcos is as widely known as "Imelda" as Presley was as "Elvis" (which it seems that most editors do not, and I cannot see that any evidence has actually been put forward to support such a claim), his article is, I would suggest, a sensible precedent on how to handle such things. Note that in Wikipedia's voice, Presley is referred to as "Presley" throughout, except in the section on early life in order to avoid confusion with other members of his family; meanwhile direct quotes frequently use "Elvis".
Imeldific: I suggest that you stop insisting that Marcos be referred to as "Imelda" against consensus on this talkpage, and instead concentrate on the actionable comments that have been given on the FAC page. I know that not all of my comments have yet been addressed. (I would also note that this fighting over whether or not Imelda Marcos should be referred to as "Imelda", and the repeated reinsertion of this against the talk-page consensus, could be interpreted as being in breach of criterion 1e of the featured article criteria. Marcos is the kind of subject that we need more featured articles on, and it would be a shame if the nomination failed for entirely avoidable reasons). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, thankyou for an excellent summary. The only point I would wish to add is that if RS from independent sources say that among particular 'audiences' she was widely referred to by first name, that would warrant inclusion in the body, in an 'image' or similar section, including identifying who those 'audiences' were and when this was. The objection is to treating a 'fan base', as a universal truth. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

3O Response: A request for a third opinion was posted regarding the possible use of a mononym in the lede section of this article. I'm declining the request for third opinion for two reasons: there is an ongoing RfC, which is a dispute resolution mechanism that I think would trump the informal advice of a third opinion, and there are more than two editors with substantive contributions to the discussion. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 18:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose use of mononym. This is the same argument put forth in the (withdrawn) requested move discussion from last year by the same user, and it's prompting the same response. WP:NOPONY. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Work remains?

In the above discussions was identified as a "prose issue":

  • In "Power struggle": "The location where her shoes and jewelry were destroyed and the contents stolen."

Well the problem is still there as left this edit. Who knows what was there before. Shenme (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest removal, or 'clarification needed' tag. The edit you 'diff' was from an editor who does not appear to be active currently and whose English was often idiosyncratic. I cannot access the 'Time' source to find out what was intended.Pincrete (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What on earth does this mean

"The location where her shoes and jewelry were destroyed and the contents stolen" What on earth does that mean? It's not a complete sentence. It's as if "is unknown" or the specified location should be added.2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Consensus to delist came in 2018, but this was incorrectly closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Imelda Marcos/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Currently this article fails the Good article criteria, particularly 2: Verifiable, with no original research. There are far too many citations to books that are missing page numbers, and one section ("A way to fame") that has no citations at all. In addition, someone else has tagged the "Role in Ferdinand Marcos's 1965 presidential campaign" section as {{too long}} so you probably need to split that into subsections. I don't know how long a typical reassessment period lasts, so let's say two weeks. If these issues are not addressed by 17 November 2018 (UTC) then the article will be delisted from GA status. —howcheng {chat} 03:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

GA is more lax when it comes to various issues, such as giving exact page ranges, than FAC, but of course, can't hurt to add. As for a section being "too long", well, that's pretty subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
That was added by Alternativity, who may want to weigh in on this. However, I notice that you had brought up the lack of page numbers in the previous assessment, to which Imeldific claimed "Done", but apparently it never was. —howcheng {chat} 03:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Hehe, that makes me fear that my brain has deteriorated since in more than one way... I'd still question whether it warrants demotion because of that, but in any case, it is best to have the numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I've wanted to do work on this article for a long time now, but I was building up a familiarity with the literature on Imelda Marcos. Looking at the {{too long}} tag more closely, I just realized that I should have tagged it with undue weight instead. (If it's under review like this, is it okay to change the tag?) Simply, the section is far too long in comparison to other, better-documented sections. My personal take is that if there's any reason this page should be demoted from GA, it's the lack of coverage of key topics, such as the cases in the US, the plunder cases filed the Presidential Commission on Good Government, and so on. (That's a big "so on", which is why I wanted to do more reading) There's a lot of work that needs to be done to be able to correct for these ommissions while retaining WP:NPOV. I'm sort of glad this review is happening because I'm hoping it'll bring up the things in the article that need work. - Alternativity (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
* Replacement of tag in 1965 Campaign section - I've gone on and revised the tag that was in the Imelda_Marcos#Role_in_Ferdinand_Marcos's_1965_presidential_campaign section. I retained the date of the old tag since I simply put in the wrong tag by mistake, but this can be changed to a newer date if that's a more appropriate procedure.- Alternativity (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
* New section on court cases, plus cleanup template - I've discovered that one of the paragraphs subsumed under the vague heading "power struggle" actually mentions one of the court cases, but only one of them. So I've subsumed that paragraph under a new section, and then added a cleanup template indicating there are multiple unmentioned casees.- Alternativity (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
* Breakup of ″Power struggle″ into two further subsections - The section previously titled ″Power struggle″ was vaguely titled to the point of obfuscation, so I separated it into two sections: ″Ninoy Aquino assassination″ (which covers the events of August 1983 and their immediate aftermath; I should add that although there were notable ″power struggles″ between Imelda and other figures in the late 70s, that's not what the text actually describes) and ″EDSA Revolution, ouster, and exile″ (1986 and onward). I also added cleanup templates because these sections have great historical significance, as acknowledged in most academic texts on the Marcos administration. - Alternativity (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I'd argue that any yellow-level or higher maintenance tag is enough to warrant delisting. Since I would be justified in putting {{Page numbers needed}} on it, a whole bunch of {{page needed}} tags is functionally equivalent. @Alternativity: I think it's fine to change the tag. The goal here is to get the article quality back up to GA standards, so we should do whatever is necessary to that end. —howcheng {chat} 20:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Howcheng: and @FunkMonk:, hi. I just want to flag that this is about to become (if it hasn't already become) a high traffic article due to the subject being convicted on seven corruption charges a couple of hours ago. I had earlier noted that the section on court cases needs expansion, and I'm working on that. Also, I also just realized that the entire section titled "First Lady" was skewed to the positive because the subheading "projects during", which results in text which describes projects within the time period described. A heading titled "roles during..." or "public life during..." would result in a less-skewed narrative. But that's a lot of work and I need to brace myself a bit before I dive into that. Not sure what that implies for this GA review since I don't normally involve myself in these. But I thought it was important to mention. - Alternativity (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well in the case where significant developments happen after an article has been promoted, and the original nominator isn't around anymore, I guess there isn't much to do unless someone else takes it up. One of the reasons why I usually refrain from reviewing articles about living people... Too much inherent instability. In any case, yes, it was a bit suspect that the original nominator was called "Imeldific", and I'd just like to make clear that I have no horse in the race when it comes to the subject matter. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Given the current state of the article, I fully support a demotion. It is Start Class, no higher. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must concur. A lot of work is going into the article right now, but I have no sense of whether or not it'll get up to the standards needed for a GA. - Alternativity (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and de-tagged it. This does not meet WIAGA criteria. --Jayron32 18:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

For sure it is not GA with the overall negativity in lede (WP:BLP violation) and the excessive WP:LEDE length. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it violates WP:LEDE length. The general rule is 4 paragraphs, and the lede is just 2 sentences longer than that. -Object404 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unsourced section

Blanking an entire unsourced section, a clear no-no for WP:BLP. Here for WP:PRESERVE. Don't re-add this without sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

1953 Miss Manila beauty pageant

Her aspiration for fame commenced after she met Angel Anden and was asked to be a cover girl of the Valentine issue of the magazine (printed on 15 February 1953) called This Week (now, Chronical Magazine), where Anden was the editor. Imelda was not able to get an approval and acquire a sponsorship to participate in the Miss Manila contest from her cousins (Danieling, Eduardo, and Loreto), but, with the help of Adoracion, gained a sponsorship from Philippine Women's University after a meeting with the president of the university, Mrs. Francisca Benitez. The controversial Miss Manila beauty pageant dawned on 1 March 1953, when Imelda and the Reyes spouses were in great despair after hearing news that Norma Jimenez became the candidate of Miss Philippines and the winner of Miss Manila, and sought to meet the mayor of Manila, Arsenio Lacson, who revoked the decision and made Imelda Romualdez the winner of Miss Manila. The mayor announced that there were violations of rules by the International Fair Board, and it is the mayor's authority to nominate the candidate of the City of Manila for the beauty contest. It turned out that Imelda won 655 points whereas Norma Jimenez acquired 453 points. Both Imelda and Norma participated in Miss Philippines; however, the winner of Miss Philippines was Cristina Galang (Caedo, now) from Tarlac, who became one of the members of Imelda's band of women campaigners, Blue Ladies.

Noticeboard

I have created a Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos of this article. Please feel free to comment there. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The WP:LEDE length is excessive and needs be trimmed. Also it appears the negative lede violates WP:BLP due to WP:WEIGHT resulting in WP:NPOV problems. For sure this is not a good article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a violation of WP:WEIGHT when it's a listing of well-known facts and is not held by just a minority view. These things are common knowledge in the Philippines. -Object404 (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"Common knowledge in the Philippines" is irrelevant here. The Marcos family might be controversial, but BLP guidelines trump that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
If you think the lede is too negative, can you list positives to counterbalance it without violating undue weight (minority view)? As it stands, all of the content in the lede is well-sourced. -Object404 (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That's not how it works, the lede is the summary of the article and the lede is too long. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

content snipped

In an effort to assuage her after the public embarrasment involving his sex tape scandal with actress Dovie Beams,[1]: "225" [2] her husband appointed her as Minister of the Human Settlements from 1976, and later as Governor of Metro Manila in 1978. She was also elected as an assemblyman for Metro Manila to the Interim Batasan Pambansa from 1978-1984.[3]

Increasing unrest springing from the economic collapse of the Philippines in the years after the assassination of Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. in 1983 came to a head in February 1986, when the the People Power Revolution unseated the Marcoses and forced the family into exile.[4]

In 1991, President Corazon Aquino allowed the Marcos family to return to the Philippines after the 1989 death of Ferdinand Marcos, so that they could face various corruption charges[5] - at least 28 of which were filed against Imelda Marcos from 1991 to 1993.[6]

Upon her return, however, the cases proceeded slowly while the Marcos family members began their return to Philippine politics.[7] Imelda Marcos was elected four times to the House of Representatives - as a congresswoman for Leyte in 1995 and for Ilocos Norte in 2010, 2013, and 2016.

Amidst the controversies surrounding Mrs. Marcos and her family, she remains one of the richest politicians in the Philippines through her collection of clothing, artwork, and jewelry, along with money in offshore bank accounts under the pseudonym "Jane Ryan". As a result, she has been called a kleptocrat by historians and, along with her husband, is recorded in the Guinness World Records as the greatest robbery of a government.[8][9]

On 9 November 2018, Marcos was convicted on corruption charges in a court proceeding that lasted twenty-seven years.[10]

Above is the content snipped per WP:PRESERVE. I am assuming this is also duplicated in the article ad-nauseam. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Seagrave, Sterling (1988). The Marcos dynasty. New York ...[etc.]: Harper & Row. ISBN 0060161477. OCLC 1039684909.
  2. ^ Sicat, Gerardo P. (2014). Cesar Virata : life and times through four decades of Philippine economic history. Diliman, Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. ISBN 9789715427418. OCLC 885027140.
  3. ^ Malasig, Jeline (2018-11-09). "Guilty: The case of Imelda Marcos and her illegal Swiss-based organizations - Interaksyon". Interaksyon. Retrieved 2018-11-10.
  4. ^ Duet for EDSA: Chronology of a Revolution. Manila, Philippines: Foundation for Worldwide People Power. 1995. ISBN 9719167009. OCLC 45376088.
  5. ^ Mydans, Seth (1991-11-04). "Imelda Marcos Returns to Philippines". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2009-12-12. Retrieved 2018-08-16. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Marcelo, Elizabeth (11 September 2017). "Cases vs Marcoses, cronies remain pending at Sandigan since late '80s". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
  7. ^ ""A dynasty on steroids"". Sydney Morning Herald. 2012-11-23. Retrieved 2018-09-01.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Guinness was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Afternoon was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ "Imelda Marcos faces Philippines arrest after guilty verdict". BBC News. 9 November 2018.

Sources

This article contains 28 citations to Pedrosa [5]. This is a clear violation of wikipedia sourcing policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

How is that a violation of sourcing policy? On the article for the National Library of the Philippines, I cited a single book 32 times since that book was the most authoritative book on the subject at hand. This is the first time I've heard of sourcing a single book multiple times can be "excessive" and is considered a "violation" of policy, especially when the article has multiple sources and is not reliant on a single source. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
We may cite a source any number of time in an article as long as the source is reliable. STSC (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to reiterate, Sky Harbor: How is citing Pedrosa 28 times a violation? I checked WP:CITE and I don't see anything negative about citing a single source multiple times. As an example, the biographical article on Eliza Acton, which is a featured article, cites a single source 26 times, and this article is less than half the length of the Marcos article. —seav (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It gives undue weight to a particular source which leads to WP:NPOV problems. Relating to Eliza Acton, that is not an excuse per WP:OSE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Then you should have explained your exact concern in the first place and have not left other editors wondering what you mean. You simply mentioned that a source is used multiple times, which in itself is not a problem. —seav (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Seav: Sorry I wasn't clear about that. There is more discussion about this issue at the noticeboard, also linked on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead original content moved

I have moved some obvious WP:OVERCITE content here [6] in the WP:LEDE down to the relevant section. It appears the two statements are not congruent. After we figure out what is true (I guess some editor of this article knows) then we can summarize it in the lede. The lede summarizes, rather than introduces content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

When you "move" contents, please make sure not to omit essential information especially if it is sourced. The original content (Line 60) [1] cited that she and her husband amassed ill-gotten wealth. Your edit (Line 312) now indicated that it was her husband alone who committed the feat. Darwin Naz (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I try to move the content in its entirety (either to this talk page or to another location on the article per WP:PRESERVE, and as you noted if I inadvertently didnt, please help me to correct it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imelda_Marcos&type=revision&diff=868954636&oldid=868940693

'excessive details' removed

It's been suggested that this page has a lot of ″excessive detail″, and I agree. I am thus beginning a cleanup, starting in the early career section. I'll use this space to list down items removed, to preserve a record of their removal. - Alternativity (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Section Text removed Rationale Signature of editor
Work at the Central Bank Intelligence Division and lessons at the Philippine Women's University ″According to Susie Abadilla, who took the same vocal sessions together with Imelda, she was not so friendly, and the reason presumably stemmed from the strict and busy routines back then, and her reluctance to talk about her family and her past.″ Removed for nonnotability of fact Alternativity (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Work at the Central Bank Intelligence Division and lessons at the Philippine Women's University ″which became the first and last performance in a music hall from her cousin, Loreto″ Removed for nonrelevance Alternativity (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Work at the Central Bank Intelligence Division and lessons at the Philippine Women's University ″she performed three songs, "Calm is the Night", "Sin Tu Amor", and "False Prophet".″ Removed for nonnotability of fact Alternativity (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Birth and family background ″Vicente's first wife, Juanita, had allegedly died of leukaemia on 3 August 1926.″ Removed for nonrelevance, alleged, and lacking citation Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Birth and family background ″She and her husband, Daniel Romuáldez Arcilla, were considered the first of the clan to have lived in Tolosa, Leyte, originally for the purpose of Daniel's health,[1][page needed] but soon became the mark for the flourish of the Romuáldez clan in said municipality.[citation needed]″ Removed for nonrelevance Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Early childhood ″Imelda has been claimed to have met General Douglas MacArthur when he landed in Palo, Leyte during the Philippines Campaign in 1944.[2][page needed]″ Poorly sourced WP:WEASEL and promotional Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Education - Elementary ″Registration records of the College from school year 1936–1937 showed that Imelda did not enrol again. This disappearance was accounted for by two sets of pictures of Imelda, which were taken at her First Communion at the Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban, Leyte.[3][page needed]″ Poorly sourced WP:NG Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

snipped again

excessive detailed content snipped from WP:LEDE here per WP:PRESERVE

During the Marcos regime, Imelda Marcos also became a senior public figure, holding important government positions such as the Minister of Human Settlements, governor of Manila, and a member of the Executive Committee, which was created to take over the government in the event of her husband's death.[4] These positions allowed her access to substantial government resources that were used for private spending purposes and money laundered to foreign countries.[5]

References

  1. ^ Pedrosa 1987b.
  2. ^ Polotan 1970.
  3. ^ Pedrosa 1969.
  4. ^ Pedrosa, Carmen (2017). Imelda Marcos. Flipside Digital Content Company Inc. ISBN 9786210100884.
  5. ^ Chaikin, David; Sharman, J.C. (2009). Corruption and Money Laundering: A Symbiotic Relationship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 155. ISBN 9780230613607.
Hi. May I request an explanation of why you think senior government positions is an "excessive detail", while people referring to her as "with due reverence (Ma'am)" is important? I understand many of your concerns, and hope to help address them at a later time. But the senior government positions seem to me to be neutral and important to anyone trying to understand her public role. Whereas the latter item seems to mainly paint her from a positive POV. Surely adding a positive fact like that just to paint a more positive portrayal would constitute false balance, not to mention pose the very NPOV issues we are trying to avoid?- Alternativity (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:LEDE is a summary, we don't need to list all her positions (she has had many). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Mentioning that she was a governor of Manila is not an excessive detail. The senior posts were mentioned to briefly summarize and explain how she also plundered money on her own and not merely as a beneficiary of her husband. She is a political figure independent of Ferdinand Marcos with some citing her as de facto president. If you want excessive details of her government posts, here they are:
  • Governor of Manila
  • Minister of the Philippine Ministry of Human Settlements, a cabinet post created in 1978 specifically for her.
  • Chair, Economic Support Fund Council (the body that administered aid from the US)
  • board of trustee/director of the government corporations (Home Development Fund, Light Rail Transit Authority, Food Terminal Inc., National Home Mortgage Finance Corp., National Food Authority Council, etc.)
  • appointed ambassadorial roles

It is exasperating when one is trying to improve the quality of this article when an editor undermines it for whatever reason. The lede of this article is humungous for the simple fact that this public figure has led a long and eventful life. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What you are referring to is an exhaustive list of the political activity of this career politician. Thus this doesn't go in the lede. See WP:NG and WP:LEDE for clarification on this. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we please avoid editing the lede until after the rest of the article has been fleshed out? After all, the lede is supposed to be a summary of the article and it makes no sense to start optimizing the lede if the article is not yet "done". I think the only time we should be editing the lede prematurely is to remove defamatory texts and unsourced texts which aren't mentioned later in the article. —seav (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no "done" at wikipedia. We can always summarize as we go along. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from deleting and shuffling content from the lede to the body for now, @Jtbobwaysf:. There is no longer any "urgent" need to do so. The size of the lede is now smaller than Today's Featured Article, Nihonium and Did You Know, East Side Access. It is now of a good size, objective achieved. Additionally your shuffling and deleting of content has caused multiple cases of disappearing citations and citations being in the wrong places. I've tried to restore the proper locations of citations before you started and moving content around and deleting, but I have not probably caught everything. Finally, I'm not sure, but I think these past few days are the first time I've touched this article. I just started contributing to it after your "call to action" -- I'm with seav on this one. Kindly refrain from deleting things from the lede as I and other editors new to the article flesh the body out in the coming weeks or months. Thank you. -Object404 (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

excessive categories

She is listed in the following categories: Category:People from Batac Category:People from Metro Manila Category:People from Tacloban Category:Visayan people Category:Waray people How could this all be true, and if it is, why would it be important? Is she simultaneously from Batac, Manila, Tacloban, Visayan (Cebu), and Waray? Seriously? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Er, I don't think "people from" implies anything really specific other than this person either grew up in a place or has been a registered resident in a place. In which case, yes, these all apply to Imelda. Maybe you can remove the Visayan people category because Waray people is under that already. —seav (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
So every place she has lived in qualifies as a category? How about the cities she lived in while in Europe on shopping sprees? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You're putting words in my mouth. I said "registered resident". —seav (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm Bisaya, so I say: remove the Visayan people category! I support that! So much shame she has inflicted on us already! - Boholanabeachbum (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imelda_Marcos/Archive_2&oldid=1138133904"