Talk:Imelda Marcos/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Imelda Marcos's name

As of 11:34 12 March 2019 (UCT), her name in the lead section is written as Imelda Marcos (née Romuáldez) which is a name structure used English-speaking cultures. In the infobox, her birth name is also written as Imelda Remedios Romuáldez y Trinidad (no citation), while in the "early life" section, her birth name is given as Imelda Remedios Visitacion Romuáldez with the source: . The Filipino name structure is supposed to be Imelda Romualdez Marcos (born Imelda Trinidad Romualdez) With Trinidad being the birth middle name, Romualdez being the birth surname, and Marcos being the married surname. That is how her name is written in the Sandiganbayan decision convicting her of graft: It's her legal name that's used in the court decision, right? MOS:FULLNAME --Jollibinay (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

LABSJAY, I reverted your edit of Imelda Romualdez, viuda de Marcos back to Imelda Romualdez Marcos for two main reasons: (1) You did not replace the citation where her legal name, as used in a court document, is written as Imelda Romualdez Marcos. (2) Although adding "viuda de" is a custom in Spanish-speaking countries, the Filipino naming customs are not identical to Spanish naming customs.

I will also revert your edit to Eva Macapagal for the same reasons.

--Jollibinay (talk) 3:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Calebvonschloer, I reverted your edit of Imelda R. Marcos (born Imelda R. Romuáldez-López y Trinidad) back to Imelda Romualdez Marcos (born Imelda Trinidad Romualdez) for two main reasons: (1) In accordance with MOS:FULLNAME, the subject's full name, if known, should be given in the lead sentence, including middle names. (2) You did not provide a citation for her birthname as "Imelda R. Romuáldez-López y Trinidad".

--Jollibinay (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 1968-Marcos-State-Visit-to-Thailand.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Overcite

This article cointues to have problems with WP:OVERCITE. See pink diamonds that I removed today. There is no reason for this many cites for a pink diamond, the editor should not add multiple sources in an attempt to add WP:UNDUE weight to some trivia. Just because the trivia has been quoted 4 times, doesnt warrant inclusion. I didnt delete the content, as I dont see a reason to, but dont keep over citing content on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Undue

WP:UNDUE content contributing to WP:NOTDIR problems. Put here per WP:PRESERVE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Foreign honors

• Jordan: Gran Cordon (1st Class) of the Supreme Order of the Renaissance (1 March 1976)
• Romania Order of 23 August 1944 (9 April 1975)
• Malta: Dame Grand Cross of the Order pro merito Melitensi (Sovereign Military Order of Malta)
• Spain: Dame Grand Cross of the Order of Isabella the Catholic (18 February 1974)

References

Policy based removal

@Abcbalbuena: i reverted your edit to re-add some of this. Be advised that WP:OVERCITE is a policy relating to excess citations. We don't use all the citations on a subject that can be found. This article is WP:NOTDIR of all of the news relating to Imelda on a particular subject. Please read WP:OVERCITE to familiarize your self with the correct number of citations. I have also removed content where there is a sub-article, as we dont need duplication of content as this article borders on WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policy before attempting to re-add. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

failed verification

Only one junk link (now broken). Totally WP:UNDUE and the nyt source doesnt mention anything of this WP:FRINGE pet theory. Leave here per WP:PRESERVE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Promotion of Brutalist architecture As chairman of the committee that created the Cultural Center of the Philippines complex, and later as Minister of Human settlements in her husband's cabinet, Imelda's building projects were often of the Brutalist architecture style characterized by fortress-like, massive shapes intended to effect a sense of grandiosity.

References

There are plenty of references for this other than the dead Rogue Magazine article. This should really have been tagged first before it was removed, since it's very well documented. A quick google search (terms: Imelda; brutalist architecture) brings out [[1]] and [[2]], for example. - Chieharumachi (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

One of the two links you provided is also dead and the other cite doesnt provide any clear link to Imelda distinct from her husband. Please find something that actually links Imelda sufficiently to meet WP:DUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it got misdirected by the wikilink somehow, it's up anyway, here: https://nolisoli.ph/21054/looks-like-marcoses-brutalists-choice/ and with a 2017 webarchive link here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170923175843/http://nolisoli.ph/21054/looks-like-marcoses-brutalists-choice/. There's also https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/mar/14/insider-guide-manila-philippines-brutalism-bamboo ; and this https://watermark.silverchair.com/04_ST314_Benedicto_FF.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAmwwggJoBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggJZMIICVQIBADCCAk4GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMbdzxwMqxNZKoxVA_AgEQgIICHzj_v4s_MPXYrYH1DfG3LWY6XUzhFsTI2mmpHNSzEerAGH0fErbb492DyJHjQULkhPiiObt038xXD6NvvOO0p6XpqT9EQbU5oj5k1oleJ9n2W-HSFagWW6fuLd2tA_02Tpd5khX1Ydq3dkzHm303lfY2YAtvLkkE0khg-YxbbEwP-YDbSR3UdUFWs_XtYjLP3RMHFF1Uysi2LVljXlWycyI_iwBUViZrPJLRKOmrI42SmSng5WS5qKUa4TVjlrSdIMd0i4c-WsgHBzDXgVAgz8BVgx6Sqg69s5YOKs6BAYxv5nT4PCWsDhhGIZcLMcDdVaOH0Q5CpD8b0bm4OZ9wSK1awFoYmzia33uE2YDoUx40zsx9Mb63G1pwkhRWDgdeqEbdj6a7KZkQjqr_9YTbyaUu3jZnPrqO5IJBeoMQfGAnN_9Hn3tOpgVcgWS4C2QbaozOAmiX10Ln2Rgw7s51onnLBidinOUmlA6cL7q5kVLtKQmLuamkOlW951VpPjhOB9L7PNihMbyuGSxzxLaiwXN48sH4vjgATHpQurTi5Q44COMyuk8vX90Wnxycy__17tf0VpeIdXVn47ys0tf3Ik_ibCilqVV3VpFAMJwZAm-2AyiaVt1nZHodLL_QR_PJSAeVi5tP7cyhu2EIMHu51gO2ER7WqHMng9eTD5JJ6kbC2JgUQ9EKgHgcx8oYenbn0_rGlhT_BppbXQx_3TK8QQ. Although I suppose in the end the question should be asked: what exactly are you objecting to as nonfactual? Her positions? The percentage of buildings who had that architectural style? That brutalism has massive shapes? Or that those shapes are "intended to effect a sense of grandiosity."? Are you denying the iconographic associations between the architectural style and Imelda? Or are you somehow saying that she did not participate in the conception of the designs and just let Locsin have his way with the damned things? Do you somehow need a reference that provides a direct quote of Imelda telling Locsin to "make them brutalist"? I'm completely mystified. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This article has problems with wikipedia policy in general, as I have noted on this talk page. The sources you provided were a blog, something on silverchair that i couldnt open, and the guardian that mentioned that Imelda commissioned a brutalist building. That doesnt pass WP:DUE for an entire section on a BLP. The brutalist concept has its own wikipedia article, and i will wikilink it in the article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

wen weng

More WP:UNDUE. Put here per WP:PRESERVE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Main article: The Search for Weng Weng

Marcos was interviewed in the 2013 documentary The Search for Weng Weng about Weng Weng a short person who became Philippines' first international celebrity at a lavish film festival she organised in 1981. Marcos praised the long forgotten actor, and said he overcame his disabilities to bring joy and laughter, as well as a good representation of the Filipino spirit where everyone has a chance. The Search for Weng Weng was completed in 2013, was well received, played in the festival circuits where it won several awards, and in some countries it had a limited theatrical release.

References

Hi,

The following was deleted, since I last posted it, and is crucial to its relevance there

Meg Adonis of Philippine Daily Inquirer noted and recommended the documentary as a way to look at Marcos' relationship with the entertainment industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imelda_Marcos&diff=955833976&oldid=955762921

There is more regarding the implication of Marcos in the making of the film, but removed it to focus on the content with her in the film. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imelda_Marcos&diff=prev&oldid=955488538

Have a look and let me know, obviously sad to see what I consider good information to be gone.

However Marcos relationship with Cinema isn't seen at all in this article, so whether the The Search for Weng Weng is kept or not. What the film talks about in that regard to her relationship with Cinema should be observed. Maybe a DVD of the film should be listed in further reading.

ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Filmman3000: Imelda's relationship with film might be due and encyclopedic, but her being featured in a documentary is probably undue, and I dont see any reason to link to it in the further reading section if it doesnt meet DUE, she surely has lots of biographies, etc and we cant list them all here. In that vane, can you please modify and put here on the talk page a proposed text and sources for consideration (focusing on her relationship with film)? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Just found you replied yes, let's mold it accordingly.Filmman3000 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Continued problems

I again did cleanup on this article today. Content in a WP:BLP must be sourced. The WP:LEDE is for summary, not introduction of POV content to shame her, and especially not for new or unsourced content. Another editor pointed out excessive sub-sections, which I agree with and deleted some of them. This article per WP:MOS should be done in prose, not subsections that appear efforts to push a WP:POV, for example listing her New York property two times, one in edifice complex and other in overseas investments. Dont push POVs here, we dont do that at wikipedia. Do not revert these changes without discussing here first. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

list of books

Blanking this off the article, per WP:NOTDIR. Below is a list of books I blanked off the article, none of these appear to have been written by Imelda. We dont add lists of books about an article's subject. As far as I can tell these are formatted as references, but are not anchoring any content in the article. Feel free to use to anchor content if necessary. Leaving here per WP:PRESERVE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Ellison, Katherine (1988). Imelda: Steel Butterfly of the Philippines (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07019-335-2. Retrieved June 13, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Mijares, Primitivo (1976). The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. Union Square Publications. Retrieved June 13, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro (1969). The Untold Story of Imelda Marcos. Tandem Publishing Co. ASIN B004X1NGV2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro (1987). Imelda Marcos: The Rise and Fall of One of the World's Most Powerful Women. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-31200-058-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro (1987b). The Rise and Fall of Imelda Marcos. Bookmark. ISBN 978-9-71134-031-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Polotan, Kerima (1970). Imelda Romualdez Marcos: A Biography (First ed.). Cleveland, Ohio: The World Publishing Company. ASIN B0006CUAQQ. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Quah, Jon S. T. (2011). Curbing Corruption in Asian Countries: an Impossible Dream?. Emerald Group Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85724-819-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Tarling, Nicholas (1999). The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia: Volume 2, Part 2, From World War II to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66372-4. Retrieved June 13, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Re: Placing an criminal infobox on the Imelda Marcos page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox issues

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

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

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

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

Relevance issues in the birth section

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

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

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

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

Done. - Chieharumachi (talk)

Shortening the 1965 Campaign Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Paragraphs seem to have neutrality issues.

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

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

Content deletions over "excessive detail"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has consensus to remove it. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep it. We use WP:IRS and WP:DUE to determine if content stays. This article has a big WP:TOOMUCH problem, it is not for every detail of the subject's life. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed revisions in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key point is that the Court of the Philippines doesnt make determinations for wikipedia. We use WP:IRS & WP:DUE, etc. WP:COMMONSENSE says these charges are likely political and we must tread lightly in our use of WP:WIKIVOICE in this case. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

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

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

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

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

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

I have to reiterate again that the word "dribble" - perhaps unless further explained - is judgemental, scornful, and offensive, especially as an "explanation" for a deletion. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @chieharumachi . I find your constant usage of the term "dribble", @jtbobwaysf to be pretty offensive, especially to other wikipedians who have put work into adding contributions to the article. -Object404 (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

JP Sears has some cool videos on being offended. I edit that article too sometimes, welcome to your comments :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your snark is not appreciated. -Object404 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't even recognize it as snark, all I see is meanness. Is not WP:Civility "part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars"? - Chieharumachi (talk)

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

here per WP:PRESERVE

• Ellison, Katherine (1988). Imelda: Steel Butterfly of the Philippines (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07019-335-2. Retrieved June 13, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mijares, Primitivo (1976). The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos. Union Square Publications. Retrieved June 13, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro (1969). The Untold Story of Imelda Marcos. Tandem Publishing Co. ASIN B004X1NGV2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro (1987). Imelda Marcos: The Rise and Fall of One of the World's Most Powerful Women. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-31200-058-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro (1987b). The Rise and Fall of Imelda Marcos. Bookmark. ISBN 978-9-71134-031-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Polotan, Kerima (1970). Imelda Romualdez Marcos: A Biography (First ed.). Cleveland, Ohio: The World Publishing Company. ASIN B0006CUAQQ. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Quah, Jon S. T. (2011). Curbing Corruption in Asian Countries: an Impossible Dream?. Emerald Group Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85724-819-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Tarling, Nicholas (1999). The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia: Volume 2, Part 2, From World War II to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66372-4. Retrieved June 13, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

You broke the references again by deleting the biblio section. Please do not do that again unless you're going to manually fix every single reference. -Object404 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Are these bibliography refs the ones in the article that are all tagged for missing page numbers and thus are not verifiable? You mentioned something about p. pagenumber in your revert, but I dont see anything in biblio with that. WP:CITETYPE says page numbers are required, shall we just start for example with deleting all the Pedrosa citations that lack page numbers? Seems like the WP:TOOMUCH that this article suffers from is largely stemming from dubious content that is often cited by a few biographies, and largely unverifiable without page numbers. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bro, just because a citation does not have a page number does not mean it is unverifiable. -Object404 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Fix format. Do not delete. -Object404 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually in the case of WP:BLP it does. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Where in WP:BLP ? Quote it please. Also if you're so insistent on deleting the Bibliography for "Wikipedia being not Amazon", may I ask you to go delete these other Wikipedia bibliography pages, pages like this Bibliography of World War II and throw that same argument before you come back here and try to delete the Bibliography section? -Object404 (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Information in a BLP must be verifiable. You seem to be confused, WP:OSE is not a justification to not follow WP:MOS. See the comments below here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course information in a BLP must be verifiable. Missing a page number does not make a citation unverifiable, and it seems you've been deleting or are wanting to delete citations (and content) over missing page numbers? -Object404 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Third Opinion: Instead of edit-warring over the bibliography, surely it would be better to convert the parenthetical Harvard-style citations to <ref>-style links? As a project, we've steadily moved away from parenthetical citations and there is currently a proposal to deprecate them. Even if that proposal does not pass it is good evidence that parentheticals are no longer a preferred method and it's easy to see why: They originated in a print medium that couldn't use hyperlinks and tooltips to display the information needed to quickly find a citation's source. We should replace the old citations and that would remove any item from the bibliography that isn't actually cited as a side-benefit automatically. It would also move everything to one place and a separate section would no longer be needed so any future reader could find the sources more easily. Do either Object404 or Jtbobwaysf object to this plan? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I support that plan. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Who's going to do it? And if you're going to do it, do it thoroughly and properly, don't just delete citations. As I said above, fix the format - move them from bibiliography to the new format, don't delete them. -Object404 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. And I was starting to get converted to the idea of Harvard Citations. At any rate, I support the idea of having a single citation style. It's sort of policy, after all, in an article. I had thought that standardizing would mean Harvard citations, but I guess not. I can help, I guess. But only after when we've achieved final consensus. I don't want to do anything until we are agreed.- Chieharumachi (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thank you for the suggestion. Could you fix just one of the bibliography citations and then i will use your diff to do the rest, I suppose I could just use find & replace to do the rest. I have no idea how to do this, and I dont see anyone else raising their hand to do it :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Object404: Eventually the overuse of the Pedrosa citations is also going to get sorted. It looks like 2-3 biographies written by the same author Pedrosa on the article's subject are being used ad nauseam to anchor content that is WP:TOOMUCH. This is a potential WP:NPOV problem per BLP rules and also seems to result in unnecessary content that is WP:UNDUE as well. You should start looking now for other WP:RS to anchor all the content that is anchored by it. Wikipedia is not meant to be a biography of everything that has happened in this lady's life. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: There are things, like schooling and beauty contests for which the Polotan and Pedrosa articles are the main sources. (Meaning if there are other writers, they just obliquely refer to those two). I suppose that can be an argument for those sections being less essential to the coverage of the subject than others. I've been working to identify stuff in those subheadings that are pretty fancrufty, like which priest did what and which uncle felt slighted by what behavior. I still feel that the crux of this conversation boils down to citation style, though, so I sorta want to learn more about what @Eggishorn: is saying before I draw any kind of conclusion for myself, much less for the group. - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chieharumachi: I think that important biographical subjects, like schooling and beauty are worthy. But as you mention, the sourcing goes on to anchor fancruft, which needs to be pruned. I am not advocating removing the citation entirely, just reducing the articles reliance on it. I think Eggishorn is referring to the two types of citation styles that are used in the article, which is generating references and bibliography sections and the desire to merge those into references. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Yes, like I said, I had just gotten convinced that there was merit in going in the other direction - merging those two sections into the bibliography, which is supposedly neater and more scholarly. But references are more popular. I myself am neutral. So I was hoping to hear both sides of that argument.- Chieharumachi (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Eggisorn says above that bibliography style are proposed to go end of life. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I see consensus has been reached. Lemme get final confirmation on best layout practices and then I shall help converting.- Chieharumachi (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Since the consensus says "This discussion supports the deprecation only of parenthetical style citations directly inlined into articles. It does not deprecate the use of the entire citation format when it is used within <ref></ref> tags, nor the use of the {{sfn}} and {{harv}} templates," may I request @Eggishorn:'s comment on how that affects the question of whether the Bibliography in this article should continue to exist, and precisely what decision points we still need to make in order to achieve actual consensus? - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you advocating keeping both citations methods on the same article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Thank you for asking. What this is is that I thought I understood what the consensus was about, but when I read the decision I got confused. Because it said "Parenthetical citations" would be deprecated but "Harvard citations" would not. I had thought those two were the same. And this article uses Harvard Citations. If "Parenthetical citations" means APA-style (Author,20xx) citations, then the consensus is irrelevant to this article after all. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What is important to me is that all the bibliography citations be properly migrated to the other type of citations and not be deleted just like that. -Object404 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CCP Main Theaterx.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Rappler source

Please see Rappler at RS Noticeboard and note this is consistently deemed to be not an RS. As WP:BLP rules are tighter, certainly not ok sources here. I have removed all these rappler sources as we dont use blogs for BLP. Generally these blog sources are promotional in nature (generally promoting that she is mega rich). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

False. Rappler has been ruled a RS as per the discussion links in the search you posted above. Rappler is not a blog, it is a news organization and has passed the stringent screening procedures to be a signatory at the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter, and is one of only 3 organizations in the Philippines to be accredited as a Fact Checker by Facebook. You are now doing disruptive edits to the article. -Object404 (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Just checked the sources yoou linked there. The group clearly determined at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#Rappler that Rappler is an acceptable source. Sure, "tighter rules" for BLP. But that's not an excuse for ignoring consensus at the noticeboard, flouting obvious consensus here, generally acting like a bully, and deleting sources just because it negates your opinion of how BLP should be interpreted. - AtoyVCruz (talk)

With all due respect, do you even read the links you post? Consensus has determined that Rappler is a reliable source per the long discussion linked by AtoyVCruz. Rappler is an accredited news organization and definitely not a blog. —seav (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

multibillion fortune

I again removed the statement from the lede that she has amassed a multi billion dollar fortune. Provide verifiable sources for this if you want to include it. There are other sources that conflict with this saying she is worth a billion pesos, and some other sources saying a few hundred million dollars. Inflating her net worth is WP:PROMO. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The books cited are reliable sources under Wikipedia rules. Restored the content. You can't say "failed verfication" just because you don't have a copy of the 3 books. That is tantamount to saying only online sources are allowed on Wikipedia which is false. -Object404 (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And FYI:

* The Philippine Star - The Top Billionaire Of The Philippines

* Listfilm - The Kingmaker documentary review

A simple Google search gave those results. -Object404 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to leave this quote here by Imelda Marcos for you to understand the extent of their stolen wealth:

"If you know how rich you are, you are not rich. But me, I am not aware of the extent of my wealth. That's how rich we are."

-Object404 (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Object404: Wow, that is an excellent quote. We should include that if that is Marcos who said that? Was it? The sources you have provided above are not RS to state she has a multi-billion wealth. We have plenty of sources stating a few hundred million usd. Normally we will use forbes rankings, or NYT, wsj, etc. Not a lifestyle publication promoting a former president as noteworthy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: you just deleted the following 3 citations. Did you check them? Did they fail verification? If you have not read them, then please promptly restore your deletions. -Object404 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, did you just refer to the Philippine Star as a "Lifestyle Publication"? -Object404 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said above I cannot locate it in the source your provided. The PhilStar by itself is not sufficient for this, there are many other sources to the contrary, even on the same article. Lede is for summary, not introducing POV content. Rappler source was removed that makes no mention of her net worth. Guardian source also makes no mention of her net worth removed. You guys are adding sources that is obvious do not support the text. Find something about her in Forbes, etc. Shall we use this source that says she has $280B? Or shall we use Telegraph that says she has a net worth of $22M? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Manapat book, the PCGG book and the Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption. Did you actually read those references which you deleted saying "failed verification"? If not stop saying "failed verification". Also the other sources are RS -- Forbes, etc are not the only sources of facts and truth. And yes, Imelda did say that quote. -Object404 (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added the quote to the article, it is great. I have already answered your question about the books above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No you have not. You seem to be referring to the new links I posted above near the Imelda quote, and not the 3 books. Now have you read the 3 books or not? Answer the question unequivocably @Jtbobwaysf:. -02:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Why are we talking about net worth when that first sentence is clearly about the ill gotten wealth? The net worth isn't notable, media barely covers it. And there aren't reliable sources because Imelda refuses to be forthright about it. Even after being reduced through all the compromise deals and the forfeitures Imelda has had, there's no telling which figures are accurate. Insisting on "net worth"? That's the nonsense. AtoyVCruz (talk)

I made the entry clearer by saying when the fortune was multi-billion. Muddying things by citing net worth from random years? That's the nonsense. We should stop allowing well-established facts to be deleted from this article. -AtoyVCruz (talk)

Last. That quote isn't "great" if you don't provide context. Otherwise it's just obfuscating window-dressing. AtoyVCruz (talk)

Alright, so far I've checked two of the "deleted sources" above: Warf (a searchable google book, go to page 335); and PCGG @30 (of which I obtained a scanned file from the PCGG about two years ago.) They DO confirm "multi-billion dollar ill-gotten wealth, the bulk of which has not yet been recovered." In fact, the Warf reference specifically says "USD 3.7 B recovered" (of "USD 10 Billion".) - Chieharumachi (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to email me the scans through the wikipedia email system. Seems we are referring to old obscure sources that assert she was a billionaire some years ago, but recent RS state she has $20M. Is that correct? Maybe someone else can fix the quote to be better if they like. But to me it adds value, as the it is nice to have a quote about the primary area that the article's subject it noteworthy for. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Warf is not "old and obscure". It was published in September 2018 and can be bought online as an e-book. Manapat is neither obscure either and is rather famous in Marcos/Martial Law studies, it's just been hard to obtain copies since it was out of print, but it got a new printing again this year. Get your facts straight. -Object404 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

No, $22M is merely the net worth that she self-declared in 2012 and probably does not reflect her actual net worth. Anyway, your point is moot since it has now been clarified that the billions figure was in 1986. So you do admit to not even reading the RS when you declared them as "failed verification" and deleted the section as well as all the citation sources? If so, that is quite dishonest and disruptive on your part to the integrity of Wikipedia and is worse than mere vandalism. -Object404 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Ill-gotten wealth

Global case conviction/ruling citations:

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

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

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

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

I see MelbourneStar (talk · contribs) reverted removing [3] citing this . Is there a later conviction? Or is this all vague convictions, overturns, cases thrown out, etc? If we are going to use ill gotten wealth in wikivoice there needs to be clear RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Beyond my ability to write about or expand right now, given my work deliverables and pandemic-related family loss. But the cases removed in the revert are completely separate civil/forfeiture cases (some of more than 40 levied against the family, I don't have an exact figure on hand) from the convictions in the previous paragraph. The convictions were for seven criminal cases (out of about 30, but again, I don't have the exact numbers). I suppose there's a question of whether there are acquittals notable enough to merit mention in the lead. There's also the Hawaii conviction, which is arguably more significant than the seven Philippine convictions, but isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. (Philippine media tend to count the number of Philippine cases, but don't usually give figures for the number of cases overseas.) But I have to read up on that a bit more before I'm comfortable that I am not misusing the language the sources use. These are court stories, so even the words used in press coverage are very precise. And the MOS discourages us from using direct quotes. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read up on it, I am not an expert on this. When I google looking for something recent I read this dismissal which seems that recent cases are being dismissed or going nowhere. The main issue is the lede is still saying that the wealth is illegal in wikivoice, and currently only has 1 source. I removed the other source which was the blog Rappler, per my comments below on this talk page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Rappler is not a "blog". It is a news organization. And just because your google-fu does not yield results you want does not mean they do not exist. Not everything is on the Internet, valid RSes included. -Object404 (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing noticeboard discussions regarding issues on the Imelda Marcos page

Just to note that this article is currently the subject of two noticeboard discussions.

• A discussion on issues about this article as a Biography of a Living Person can be found at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos; and
• A discussion regarding user:jtbobwaysf's actions on this (Imelda Marcos) page can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_behavior_and_removal_of_references_in_Imelda_Marcos.

Some editors may wish to join these discussions. - Chieharumachi (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re. reverting removal of Presidential Commission on Good Government external link

Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss. I will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN and ANI discussions about edits on this page. Thanks. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Text removed from inauguration section

Hi.I'm removing some fancrufty text from the inauguration discussion, partly because it's merely descriptive withoout contributing needed information, and partly because it violates the Wiki rules for neutrality of tone. But I am recording the text here as per WP:Preserve:

Ferdinand and Imelda then went to the Luneta Park for the inauguration ceremonies...

• deleted: "...and were seated at the very center of the Luneta grandstand. They were surrounded by foreign dignitaries and government officials. Allegedly, a mass of anonymous men and women attended the ceremony to glimpse the beauty of the new First Lady. After the ceremony, she was described as someone with "such dignity, such regality.""

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC billionaire

Should Imelda be referred to as a billionaire in the lede? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No there doesn't seem to be any real RS that substantiate this claim and the claim appears to be promotional and undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Irrelevant - As pointed out numerous times, the lead does not claim that subject (Imelda Marcos) is a Billionaire. There are sources which cite various amounts for net worth, but these conflict with each other somewhat - besides which current net worth is not what she was known for, but rather the ill-gotten wealth she was demonstrated to have gained as of 1986, which has been reduced as a result of court case losses, out of court settlements, and so on. Given subjectg' press statements that imply her personal wealth is greater than stated, I don't think the lead should be discussing current net worth at all. Meanwhile, the 5 to 10 Billion estimated amount (and "estimated" is essential here) is both (1) referenced extensively by primary (Cases, see WP:Primary saying these should be further supported if used), secondary (Local and International Press), and even tertiary sources (Guiness), and (2) shown significant relative to the subject by the amount of coverage. It may cast the subject in a negative light, but it is widely acknowledged and subject simply cannot be discussed without bringing it up. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• No there is neither any need nor sourcing (seemingly) for her current worth, however the best estimate of the amount believed to have been misappropriated and possibly their net worth before their downfall should be included. The text of that is a little vague and 'tabloidy' at present, using " stole billions from the Filipino people". Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• No per lack of RS supporting the claim. Idealigic (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• No The claim is not verified by RS information and is not worthy of inclusion in the lead in any case. The claim is tenuous at best and inappropriate for inclusion. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• No Her financial worth was the result of her life choices and opportunities. A lead should contain more fundamental stuff. 15:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Dutchy45 (talk)
• Move to close I think consensus has pretty much established that the subject's net worth should not be included in the lead paragraph. Do please note that the editor who proposed the survey was given an indefinite topic block for this subject, and is thus unable to move that the survey be closed. - Chieharumachi (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC).
• RFC closed - I think consensus has pretty much established that the subject's current net worth should not be included in the lead paragraph. As per instructions in the tag, I am now removing the RFC tag. - Chieharumachi (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• The subject of this article (as well as her husband, family, cronies, etc) are often referred to as having stolen (or misappropriated) billions many decades ago. However, there doesn't seem to be any recent quality sources that state she is a billionaire today. There are some online only type news sources such as Rappler, some other blogs (one that says she has a net worth of $180B), court rulings (primary at best), and some biographies (recent or reliable RS?) discussed above on this talk page, but I am not convinced these low quality sources meets the standard for us to say in wikivoice she is a billionaire today (I personally would be looking for forbes list, nyt, wsj, etc). It seems like WP:SYNTH to assume she is a billionaire today since she might have at one time been one in the past, or even more of a stretch that she got all the money that her family and friends allegedly stole. It appears to me that calling her a billionaire might be an attempt to add additional and undue weight to the article subject (which is btw not necessary as she is already notable enough for her shoes). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I submit that WP:SYNTH is only in the perception of the user, as the lead clearly refers to the 1986 amount. The lead has been revised a few times to make this clearer, and the matter has been explained in BLPN and ANI several times, but somehow the editor still insists that the Billions (as in "estimated USD 5 to 10 Billion) is about current net worth. The lead even takes pains to talk about the Billions having been REDUCED since 1986 thanks to court losses, settlement deals, etc. (THERE, I think the sourcing is weak, but it seems to be the "balance" the editor desires.) There are no reliable numbers for current net worth. Even Imelda asserts that. So it shouldn't be in the lead. But the thing is, I've read those 4 paragraphs again and again and again and it simply is not there. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I recall edits that resulted in the ANI refer to her present net worth "she amassed a personal fortune of billions of us dollars" [4]. Present net worth is also discussed here Talk:Imelda_Marcos/Archive_3#Wealth where you added the presidential commission report stating her net worth. Also discussed again here Talk:Imelda_Marcos/Archive_3#multibillion_fortune around the time you opened the ANI. This treatment of this content seems to meander from she is very rich now (earlier on the article) to (presently) she was very rich before and has given some money back. Are you suggesting i pull the RFC and reword it? I am open to that but I need suggestions. I thought simpler we first deal with the concept of her present net worth and then later we work on her family's 1986 net worth. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is no contention on whether her current net worth should be discussed in the lead. It should not. For the record, I do not at all interpret the sentence you quote as in any way describing present net worth as it clearly described a past event, and there have been many intervening years. However, I agree it was awkward (it was not mine, by the way) and I am glad that it has since been rephrased to clearly indicate that the Billions referred to the amount estimated to have been amassed by and as of 1986. I suggest we not keep asking people to vote on what I think is clearly a nonissue. - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• I concur with User:Pincrete's assessment dated 08:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC), and am eager to discuss a more NPOV rephrasing of the specific sentence. - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is POV-ish, merely 'tabloidy' and unspecific. Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Noted with much thanks, Pincrete, regarding the distinction. Let's think up some source-supported alternatives. (Have to go to work, now though. So it might take me a while, unless I can't resist the draw of Wiki while working. :D - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Neutrality Dispute

The non-neutrality of the article was not proven at the NPOV noticeboard. As such I am removing the tag. -Object404 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)