Talk:Imelda Marcos

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imelda Marcos article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Imelda 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 12, 2014	Peer review	Not reviewed
March 31, 2014	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 23, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 26, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
April 29, 2016	Peer review	Not reviewed
May 6, 2016	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 19, 2016	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 9, 2018	Good article reassessment	Delisted
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?
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

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Top‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

List of awards and honors bestowed upon Imelda Marcos was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 June 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Imelda Marcos. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Text and/or other creative content from Cultural Center of the Philippines was copied or moved into Imelda Marcos on 2018-11-09. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Imelda
Imelda Marcos

Discussions:

Imelda Marcos → Imelda, Withdrawn by nominator, 21 August 2015, discussion

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

/Archive 1 (creation-2015)
Talk:Imelda Marcos/GA1 (2014)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[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]

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)[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

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?

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Biographies
Media, the arts, and architecture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

Cast your !vote

Option A (current infobox image)
Option B (preferred)
Option C
Option D
Option E (former infobox image)
Option F
Option G
Option H
Option I
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]

It fails recognisability. Emmentalist (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[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. The Savage Norwegian 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. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
D, as per BarrelProof. Shame no shoes, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]