Jump to content

Talk:Imelda Marcos/Archive 4

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

Photo

Shouldn't the photo be the one she had during her tenure? Newer photos doesn't mean that it should be the picture that should be used. Former first ladies and political leaders use the images from back then rather than the most recent ones, so why is this article using the one we have now? For example, Rosalynn Carter and Jimmy Carter. In my opinion, we should use this photo instead. PyroFloe (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Options

  • Option A (former lead image)
    Option A (former lead image)
  • Option B
    Option B
  • Option C
    Option C
  • Option D (current lead image)
    Option D (current lead image)
  • Option E
    Option E
  • Option F
    Option F
  • Option G
    Option G
  • Option H
    Option H

Coincidence?

The timing of this article was delisted almost 3 years ago this coming November 9. I learned that Imelda was convicted of graft by the Sandiganbayan at the timing of the good article delisting. There is something suspicious here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.211.38.89 (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Stole money?

No they are not. Wiki pedia please dont agree to one side only. So that when we are studying they(us) in which student not now believing you. So feel us. Thanks! 158.62.97.178 (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There are dozens of reliable sources on the contrary and all of them point to the indisputable fact that Imelda Marcos together with her husband, Ferdinand Marcos, stole billions of Filipino taxpayer pesos. We have an entire section on her article dedicated to proving and explaining the fact, and an article discussing more. Please don't assume that Wikipedia is taking sides without showing evidence to dispute current claims. Chlod (say hi!) 14:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Need for editing

The length of this article, and the focus on legal disputes between the state and its subject, is inconsistent with and far more detailed than other Wikipedia articles on political personalities of far more importance, as measured by the influence they had or the number of people whose lives they affected. It needs to be significantly edited down. 78.145.231.208 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not all other "political personalities of far more importance" were criminals? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Imelda Marcos and her family did not stole billions of money, there are no evidence and Harry Roque said that they are proven innocent by having no cases of abuses and stealing of money. 130.105.211.118 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see above response Cannolis (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Really? There is no mention of Imelda Marcos at the Harry Roque article. And that's not quite what he says here, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Billions of what?

The current version of the article states that she and her husband stole billions.

Billions is a number, and without a unit it means nothing. Does it refer to the Philippine pesos of the 1980's? The equivalent value in today's Philippine pesos? Some other currency, such as euro? - Tournesol (talk) 08:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Having posted this I read the thread above and updated the article. - Tournesol (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos

About Imelda Marcos 124.105.187.198 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Revisit and research

Revisit and research deeper all the facts according to reliable historians and scholars not on the people with political motifs on that particular era. 70.31.101.167 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hindi ba to bias

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

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

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

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)

stole billions? convicted criminal? please fix this

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

Bias

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)

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)
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)

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

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)
@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)

Biased Article

I don’t know who wrote this article, because they are anonymous, as always, but it starts out with every negative thing about her you can think of. (This happens all the time in Wikipedia articles about current or former politicians whom the writers don’t like.)

No wonder I don’t give any money to Wikipedia, because I don’t support this kind of biased—derogatory commentary right off the bat, if the writer even knows the expression. 2601:1C2:C184:53B0:DCD3:A5BC:A207:3C37 (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not written by just one person. The degree of anonymity adopted by registered users varies. Perhaps you could list here all the "negative things" that appear at the start of the article, which you believe are not justified, and they can be discussed? Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise the salient points of the entire article, whether positive or negative, "right off the bat" in the opening section. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox image

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)

I see the picture changed! Well done! Emmentalist (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Options

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)
  • 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)
    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)
    It fails recognisability. Emmentalist (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Seav: & @Thesavagenorwegian: Though it might be early, there's a slight consensus against using Option A due to the poor quality of it. Seeing as how Options B, E and D have been thrown around as suitable replacements, is there a non-Option A image you two believe works best? Trying to see what the consensus is for a replacement photo. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Still leaning, not strongly, towards A. If consensus is against, I think D is probably best. TheSavageNorwegian 22:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • (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)
  • 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)
    Which of the options (slim pickins it seems) would you prefer to substitute A? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    B, if I have to choose. Maproom (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • B, then E. D obscures too much of her face. Absolutely not A, which as mentioned by other editors is unflattering to the point of unusability. — Goszei (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • D looks straightforward and neutral. The mouth position looks strange in B, like she's in the middle of saying something. E looks old and low-quality. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • D, as per BarrelProof. Shame no shoes, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot)Anything but A. Wikipedia policy on images requires recognisability. This picture is of poor quality and fails that test. In the context of the article, which does not look entirely free of negative point of view itself, the image may not be neutral re W:NPOV. In my view, D is a clear and sharp image presenting the subject as most people would recognise her. I vote D, but wouldn't die in a ditch over it. Emmentalist (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • D, then once she dies, B or E. As long as the subject is living, we should get at least the best photo of her that is recent enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imelda_Marcos/Archive_4&oldid=1294570978"