Jump to content

Talk:Imelda Marcos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleImelda Marcos was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
March 31, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
March 23, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 26, 2016Good article nomineeListed
April 29, 2016Peer reviewNot reviewed
May 6, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 9, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 31, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Imelda Marcos (pictured) spent US$2,000 on chewing gum in an airport stop?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 4, 2014, and November 4, 2016.
Current status: Delisted good article

stole billions? convicted criminal? please fix this

[edit]

someone please edit this, google/Wikipedia is meant for true facts not wrong accusations. Gooskitzo (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fully sourced to WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sources came from medias that supports the obligarchs and leftists Showbizph (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Showbizph: Please provide a link to actual reliable sources that prove otherwise. Chlod (say hi!) 07:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pls correct this.. for once stip being bias Showbizph (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chlod i agree that your article for Mrs Marcos is well provided with sources. Sources from the leftist and from medias whom nothing good to say about the Marcoses. Let me ask you one thing, Are you aware that the family was acquitted and found inocent in so many cases filed to them. That your sources wrote that when they're still undergoing that trial and how about now that they got acquitted in their so called claims? Did they took time to revise their "accusations"? Guess you have to update your outdated and must say bias article. Showbizph (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi ba to bias

[edit]

Sino nag sulat? 49.230.48.178 (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll need to write in English here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should correct this.. this is so bias and some are not yet proven Showbizph (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Showbizph! Kindly list down what sections need to be changed and what exactly they need to be changed into. Please ensure that your desired changes are back up by sufficient sourcing as well from reliable sources in accordance with WP:RS .
If you have found an issue with the factuality of some of the information in this article, please feel free to show evidence that shows that they are not true from reliable sources as well Firekiino (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Whoever author this pls stop being bias. For 36 years filipinos have been brainwashed by this leftist.. Imelda Marcos was acquitted in thousand cases filed by the Aquino's using the power of government and medias to strengthen thier claims against the Marcoses.. Showbizph (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims is blatantly wrong and does not promote neutral point of view. Seems like a pro-Marcos guy trying to start an edit war against other editors here. The almighty anomalocaris • chat 11:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are your concrete claims to prove that Imelda is finally innocent? (I'm sorry I can't allow YT conspiracy videos due to being user-generated content which is sometimes not reliable. Thanks. The almighty anomalocaris • chat 11:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... about the shoes

[edit]

Are we just failing the article having only a single pair here and at Wikicommons? or there legitimately aren't actual photographs of an actual collection and this is just a successful urban myth / political hit job? — LlywelynII 13:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vice has a piece here (with photos!) Howard the Duck (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the picture of Marcos used on this page so creepy?

[edit]

Can it please be changed? PLEASE??? Disabled Lemon (talk) 1:47 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the lead image about three years ago. See Talk:Imelda Marcos/Archive 4#Photo. Perhaps we now need a re-run? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Disabled Lemon: & @Martinevans123: I came here for this reason as well. Having been a key contributor to the discussion three years ago, I have always found the current picture so unflattering. I found an alternative and I'd be okay to re-open another discussion. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Infobox image

[edit]

It's been three years since the last discussion was held in regards to the infobox image. As I believed so back then, the current image (which was reached by consensus albeit) is unflattering and as one user noted above, it's a bit creepy. I created a cropped close up so you can see what I'm talking about. Her eyes are half-open, quality isn't the best and if this is truly the 'best' picture that captures what she's known for (as stated in the last discussion three years ago in terms of her outfits), then perhaps it's best to asses an infobox image based on quality over what she's 'known' for. If this is the best picture that shows her during her 'comeback' (as stated in last discussion), then once again, I must emphasize the quality of the picture (awkward lighting, unflattering eye pose, not the best in quality). These are the current images at commons that are best suited for an infobox image. As noted in other talk page discussions, when the subject of an article passes away, their infobox image is also replaced with a black and white picture or of one that captures them in their 'prime' so to speak. Although (as of now) Marcos is still alive, I feel that Option B is in better quality than the current picture, shows her as her time as First Lady (much like other first lady articles) and will depict her in her prime when she passes away (not a huge factor now, but worth thinking about). Pinging previous contributors to the discussion three years ago for good measure: @Chieharumachi:, @Crisantom:, @Object404:, @Unilimited247:, @Lochglasgowstrathyre: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Options

[edit]
Cast your !vote
  • Option A (current infobox image)
    Option A (current infobox image)
  • Option B (preferred)
    Option B (preferred)
  • Option C
    Option C
  • Option D
    Option D
  • Option E (former infobox image)
    Option E (former infobox image)
  • Option F
    Option F
  • Option G
    Option G
  • Option H
    Option H
  • Option I
    Option I
  • Option J (cropped close-up of current infobox image)
    Option J (cropped close-up of current infobox image)
  • Option B or E As stated above, these two images are in better quality than the current image and best depicts Marcos in her prime as First Lady. If I had to pick between the two, Option B is far better. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the relevant policy is WP:BLPIMAGE. And I don't see anything there that invalidates the current image and we have no obligation to choose an image that presents a subject in the best light. It is also a long-standing practice that we use contemporary photos (and not decades-old photos) of subjects that are still alive so I think almost all other options wouldn't normally be chosen. So I prefer that we stick with the status quo unless we actually have a "better" contemporary photo. —seav (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that there's slim pickins currently available, how is the (among other users's opinions including my own) unflattering picture of her with her eyes half-open any better from the ones in which is somewhat more flattering (in terms of less awkward posing). I understand that this one may be the only recent image we have, but given the decades-old pictures that show her in a more less awkward fashion, surely there has to be an exception aside from dates. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) Unfortunately, A is best until we get a better recent photo, but once she has died I am 100% on board with one of the more flattering and emblematic images. TheSavageNorwegian 21:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like her. But I consider A and J gratuitously unflattering. We wouldn't use those for any honest person while there are better pictures available; and I don't think WIkipedia should be influenced in this decision by her history as an embezzler. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the options (slim pickins it seems) would you prefer to substitute A? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B, if I have to choose. Maproom (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but A, disregarding the "avoid flattereing the subject" issue, A is a terrible, unclear, photo. The coloured ones are far from perfect, but one of those or a B & W one identify the subject better (B is probably best of the B & W ones)Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, then E. Absolutely not A, which as mentioned by other editors is unflattering to the point of unusability. — Goszei (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imelda_Marcos&oldid=1265725735"