Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 6

RfC for the use of the term "kleptocrat" in Wikivoice on a political figure
Ferdinand Marcos is a controversial figure, recently there's been disagreement whether or not to use the term "kleptocrat" in the opening paragraph of this article, especially in a first-person tone. I find it disconcerting that other figures who can be compared to Marcos as similar such as Suharto has no mention of "kleptocrat" in any part of the article. Other figures in listed in the example section of the Kleptocracy wiki (Kleptocracy) has little or no mention of the term "kleptocrat" in their respective wikis as such I find this wiki odd. Another point I have raised is the term has become a pejorative in common parlance and I have discouraged its use when there are neutral alternatives of the term and I find its use in an encyclopedia unsuitable.

See section Talk:Ferdinand Marcos for reference for the current discussion on the issue: Consistency with Wikipedia's use of the term "kleptocrat" Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a poorly-framed RfC, see WP:RFCST, WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:WRFC. For a start, what does See section for reference refer to? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, apologies for the format. I forgot to include my opening statement, I'm editing it now. I'm referring to this section: for the discussion that has been going on. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: WP:WIKIVOICE points to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view. It says: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." It is uncontested even by Jay.zero21 9911 that Ferdinand Marcos is a kleptocrat, and it is supported by numerous reliable sources such as the following to name just a few: historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists all call Marcos a kleptocrat. These experts on the subject are pretty authoritative and definitive. There is no reliable source to my knowledge that states that Marcos was not a kleptocract, thus making the term uncontroversial. Kleptocrat in case is not used as a pejorative, but as a neutral, objective fact, much like how the following Good article class subjects are described in their opening sentences with supposed "pejoratives" if Jay.zero21 9911's comment were to be applied: Seung-Hui Cho - "mass-murderer", Terry Peder Rasmussen - "serial killer", Ted Bundy - "American serial killer" who "kidnapped, raped, and murdered", and Al Capone - "gangster". Neutral facts are merely being stated in all of these cases. The disagreement described above is between solely Jay.zero21 9911 and the numerous other editors who all have disagreed with his POV at the appropriate section he stated. -Object404 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Kleptocrat in the lead furthermore, I argue that this is NON-DEBATABLE - It is a factual statement backed up by sources and is uncontested. "Neutral" does not mean "kind to the subject", it does not mean "politically neutral", it does not mean we censor what has been written in reliable sources.  Please reread WP:NPOV, which covers this.  "NPOV ... means means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  Note this last bit.  "Significant views that have been published by reliable sources".  That's what we have here.  That's what stays in the article.  Furthermore, the NPOV policy states "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."   Kleptocrat is what is stated by all reliable sources, and is undisputed by reliable sources.  Thus, by wikipedia policy, its inclusion is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or editor consensus. Fieari (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Kleptocrat, stated as a plain fact - As I have argued earlier, and as others have poited out, (1) Ferdinand Marcos Sr.'s status as a kleptocrat is uncontroversial, contested only by those who wish to totally avoid negative coverage of the subject; (2) I disagree with the assessment that the word "kleptocrat" is pejorative. It has negative connotations inherent to the referent, not the signifier. The negative implication is due to the act/state itself being negative; (3) consensus on Ferdinand Marcos' kleptocracy is so broad, reflecting assertions by intergovernment, government, mainstream media, and academic sources, that bending over backwards to identify all these sources is pedantic, while presenting arguments in Marcos' defense is plain wp:false balance.  Wikipedia should call a spade a spade.  "Marcos was a kleptocrat" is too broadly accepted for Wikipedia to do otherwise, despite the assertions of current efforts to whitewash Marcos' legacy. I also agree with User:Fieari that this is ultimately non-negotiable, unless Wikipedia is in the business of obscuring well-established, firmly documented, broadly accepted facts- Thundersub (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep kleptocrat in the lead, stated plainly and without ambiguity. 1. Reliable sources support the term. The fact that Mr. Marcos was a kleptocrat is supported by court records, republic acts, academic journals, academic conferences, news media. Are there reliable sources that contend otherwise? There are none. On Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say. This should be clear. 2. The word kleptocrat is not pejorative. No evidence was provided to support the claim that the term is pejorative. The claim that the term is pejorative is false. 3. There is no convention that instructs editors to avoid the term kleptocrat. The claim that such convention exists is also false. Kleptocrat needs to stay in the lead. Calling Mr. Marcos a kleptocrat is merely stating an objective fact. This is by no means controversial or contentious. No need to shy away from the term. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. If Mr. Marcos was a kleptocrat then he should be called a kleptocrat. Crisantom (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep the description of Marcos as kleptocrat in the current voice. No need for writing it as this: "...is classified as a kleptocrat by political scientists, historians, economists and journalists". Aside from being unnecessarily lengthy, this way of writing may suggest that Marcos being labelled as a kleptocrat and his regime as a kleptocracy are only very recent, is still open for debate, or is not yet an established fact, or is a matter of opinion which are all far from truth. It should be taken into consideration that unlike other similar world leaders, Marcos is the most associated and most cited in literature with the word kleptocrat and kleptocracy. It is therefore not fitting to argue that the use of the word kleptocrat for Marcos should be based on the consistency of the use of the same word in other Wikipedia articles of other corrupt leaders, aside from the fact that this is not a Wikipedia policy. Tagaaplaya (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep kleptocrat in lead. Per all of the above comments. rogueshanghai chat (they/them) 10:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This article here is too bias..Marcos did great things to Philippines
This article here is too bias..Marcos did great things to Philippines 180.195.208.231 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some mentions of the things in the article that you've said but the article has no 'bias' at all. VictorTorres2002  ( talk ) 01:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

BIAS!
FYI! If you put "KLEPTOCRAT" to the late Pres. Marcos due to the former issues of corruption which during his era. You can also put that 'KLEPTOCRAT" word to the later Presidents of the Philippines. Please do more research about the person, it is a SHAME that up to this year your page is still not updated with the RIGHT INFORMATION. The information that you have in page is more on the bad details during his reign and NOT INFORMING MORE OF HIS ACCOMPLISHED PROJECT in my country PHILIPPINES.

DO YOUR RESEARCH AND OPEN YOUR EARS AND MIND.
 * The difference is that it is established by numerous reliable sources that Marcos' regime is a kleptocracy. —seav (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia with all due respect. You dont have the right to put kleptocrat to our former President who's credibility and leadership was stained by fake news or criticisms made by the opposition which are oligarchs joined for with the communist groups who wants to take over the government. Please remove kleptocrat in your definition because it spreads miss information about our Great Former President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos.. Jiofreed15 (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Marcos being referred to as a kleptocrat is not a Wikipedia opinion but an established fact according to evidences, scholarly studies, Supreme Court decision, and news reports by news agencies here and abroad. If you think otherwise, you are more than welcome to edit provided you have the legitimate evidences to the contrary. Tagaaplaya (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ignore the Marcos apologists. The excessive corruption and brutality of the Marcos Dictatorship are well-documented in academic research, historical sources, journalistic articles, and other legitimate sources that these propagandists try to delegitimize by throwing around "bias" and "fake news". Never mind that even their comments here contain fabrications that are contrary to well-established facts. (in other words: they're lying) Jonathantobi (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI FORMER PRESIDENT FERDINAND MARCOS IS THE BEST PRESIDENT IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY. SO PLEASE DO NOT PUT A VERY, THE AQUINOS ARE THE WORST PRESIDENT , TRUTH WILL PREVAIL. Tengtong1225 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source. Crisantom (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any substantial evidence or actual credible source for such a bold statement? Overseerblue (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Kleptocrat
Wake uppppppp. If BBM wins and all of the information written are false like kleptocrat, remove it immediately. I do not say this ng pautos lang Sanaall4all (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * See and . Provide reliable sources support your claim if you think that should be removed regardless. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2022
Please search and change "in the months immediately proceeding" to "in the months immediately preceding". The correct verb there is "precede", not "proceed". Hekimgil (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Esp
Ano ang mga na tulong ni Ferdinand Marcos 182.255.42.117 (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Pwede matatanong ang mga Reference desk at tl:Wikipedia:Konsultasyon. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Oo wala man lang positive na sinulat lahat negative! Silhoutteknight (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

magkaroon sana ng justice ang profile ni Marcos
sobrang bias! nkakakilabot puro hatred, wala man lang nailagay na magagandang ginawa ni marcos sa kanyang panahon, puro negative nalang! buti pa ung profile ni kim jung-un, malinis, kung tutuusin un tlga ang dictator at masamang tao, kumpara kay marcos BINABOY NYO LANG! alam nyo kung bakit Bias? pag sinearch nyo ung mga writter dto madami sa kanila writter din ng ABSCBN! MGA ULOL!

looking forward na mabigyan ito ng justice lalo n ngayon president na si BBM. Silhoutteknight (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Silhoutteknight: The page is written based on available reliable sources about the Marcos administration, and also includes part of Marcos' infrastructural projects during his time as president. It does, however, also include the issues of administration as presented by reliable sources, because Wikipedia does not have a dedication to making biographies look good for the subject, but rather a dedication to the biography's accuracy (and as of now, it is highly accurate). If you wish to contest any of the claims made by the article, or wish to include information that the article had left out, please include a link to a reliable source that can be used as a citation. In addition, please don't make assumptions towards the editors of this article. As it stands, this article has contributions from over 588 editors, and no one editor has a majority over authorship nor are they connected (as far as I can tell) to any company or group. Chlod (say hi!) 23:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ang pahinang ito ay nakasulat base sa mga naroon na naaasahang pinagkukunan tungkol sa administrasyon ni Pangulong Marcos, at kasali dito ang iba sa mga proyektong pang-imprastraktura noong oras niya bilang pangulo. Gayunpaman, nakadagdag din dito ang mga problema ng kaniyang administration base sa mga naasahang pinagkukunan kasi ang Wikipedia ay walang dedikasyon na magpaganda ng mga artikulo para sa paksa nito kundi sa katumpakan ng artikulo (at sa ngayon, higit na tumpak ito). Sakaling nais mo na labanan ang ibang sinasabi ng artikulo, o nais mo magdagdag ng impormasyong di nakasali sa artikulong ito, magbigay ka ng link papunta sa isang naaasahang pinagkukunan na puwedeng gamitin bilang sitasyon. Bukod pa dito, huwag po kayong gumawa ng mga pagpapalagay tungkol sa mga nagsulat ng artikulong ito. Sa ngayon, ang artikulong ito ay gawa sa nasulat ng higit sa 588 na tagasulat, at walang isang tagasulat ang naghahari sa mga nai-ambag na gawa at wala rin dito ang may koneksyon (base sa paghahanap ko) sa isang partikular na kompanya o grupo. Chlod (say hi!) 23:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Great President
This article is BIAS 2001:4455:54B:D100:19A4:B47A:D8E0:FF6B (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly why? The article is well-sourced with citations to reliable sources. seav (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

MAPANIRA, KASINUNGALINGAN, BIAS
1. Sa lahat ng ikinasao ng Administrayong Aquino sa Marcos walang napatunayan. 2. Nakulong ba sila? 3. Hindi mayaman ang Pilipinas para manakawan ng malaking halga. 4. Bago maging Presidente si Marcos ano ba ang Pilipinas? Bago siya nahalal ano bang estado ng ekonomiya ng Pilipinas? Simula palang mga puppet na ang nakaupo sa Pilipinas. 5. Meron palang magnanakaw na nagpapatayo ng infrastructures, energy plant, health facility, culture center at san juanico bridge. 6. Tuta ng dilawan ang naggawa nito. Bakit di niyo ilagay yung achievements ni Marcos huh? 7. Bakit puro klepto at dictador thoughts lang meron dito huh? Baka namn transparent yang facts niyo. 136.158.78.9 (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Just one example, but the Supreme Court recognized worth 25 billion pesos of ill-gotten wealth stolen by the Marcoses. Imelda Marcos herself was convicted of graft and sentenced to prison, making her a convicted criminal.
 * 2. How can you arrest a dead person? Ferdinand Marcos never set foot (while alive) in the Philippines again after his exile in 1986. In addition, former PCGG Commissioner Ruben Carranza stated three reasons as to why the Marcoses aren't in jail: (a) The Marcoses were good at hiding their money abroad, (b) the government was too elaborate with their approach, and (c) the judiciary was also corrupt.
 * 3. By nominal GDP, the Philippines ranks 32nd in the world (3rd in the ASEAN) with a GDP of US$361.5 billion (₱18.935 trillion). When Marcos' presidency started in 1965, the Philippines ranked 30th with a GDP of ₱1.980 trillion (2018 PHP). To put that into perspective, there are 195 countries in the world, placing the Philippines at the top 16%.
 * 4. Manuel Roxas, Elpidio Quirino, Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia, and Diosdado Macapagal would all be disappointed to hear that they're called "puppet presidents", being presidents that were elected after the Japanese occupation of the Philippines and the declaration of Philippine independence. All of the aforementioned were presidents prior to Ferdinand Marcos. If you wish to call them such, please provide a reliable source (no YouTube conspiracy videos or Facebook posts) that can support your claim.
 * 5. Yes. Those are sometimes called front organizations if they involve multiple people. For humans, the act is most commonly considered graft (and is punishable as such). Specifically for Marcos, the infrastructure projects were built with loans from other countries, which led to severe debt against the economy by the end of his dictatorship. We have an article about this: Edifice complex. The power plant you mentioned isn't even active due to security concerns (abandoned by Marcos himself in 1979).
 * 6. Marcos' achievements are detailed in the article under and . It's unfortunate that he's done many problematic things, however, which are greater in count in comparison to the positive contributions.
 * 7. Information about specific parts of the article can always be traced back to its reference (the small number between brackets). Where we get the information from is almost always provided on Wikipedia (and in fact, providing it is a guideline).
 * As a final note, I suggest that you remain civil in discussions, and avoid using aspersions against editors. Chlod (say hi!) 09:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022
180.191.145.244 (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please removed kleptocrat of former president marcos sr. Because he is not a thief!
 * Some sources do indeed say he's a kleptocrat. If you think it still shouldn't be here, please discuss it in stead of simply placing an edit request. Animal lover &#124;666&#124; (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court of the Philippines has long declared the Marcos regime as a kleptocracy. Yes, Marcos is a thief. Unless you provide sources better than a Supreme Court ruling, news reports, peer-reviewed research articles, and scholarly books combined, the description is not going to change. Tagaaplaya (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Consistency with Wikipedia's use of the term "kleptocrat"
I would like to raise an issue of the usage of the term "kleptocrat" on this wiki in respect with wikis of other leaders being described as a "kleptocrat".

"Kleptocrat" is a notoriously sensitive term politically and if Wikipedia's stance on political neutrality is to be consistently observed, the exact wording used on the first paragraph of this wiki would be a lapse in judgement.

"Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos Sr. [was] a Filipino politician, lawyer, and kleptocrat [who] served as the 10th president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986." The language used in this paragraph would seem to suggest that Wikipedia has made an objective verdict. While there can be a room for debate of the extent of Ferdinand Marcos' misuse of public funds, whether it be ubiquitous knowledge, proven fact, defamation or conspiracy theory, such topic should be toned in a way that doesn't give the reader a dangerous conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy#Examples Although this wiki has questionable language on its own particularly the Example section, but going through this list, none of the wikis of the listed people were written in the same way as the first paragraph of this wiki. It has not explicitly worded "kleptocrat" with such conviction. If Wikipedia does make such verdict, then the wikis of all those listed should be worded in the same way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto According to the Kleptocracy wiki in the Example section, Suharto embezzled the largest amount of public funds, but there's not a single mention of "kleptocrat" or "kleptocracy" in the wiki. The language is more formal, simply calling it widespread corruption or misuse of public funds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sani_Abacha (and a few others) These wikis uses the term but it often states it in a way that it is how the public see it, or there is a verified mention of the term describing these leaders instead of Wikipedia giving the verdict like in this wiki.

Perhaps this term shouldn't be used at all in any wiki because of its inherent language. This doesn't seem to conform with Wikipedia's high standard of choosing a neutral language.

I would suggest instead of putting this term on the first paragraph, this term should just be used in a third-person language or none at all.

Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * He is a kleptocrat? Yes? He holds the Guinness World Record for "Greatest Robbery of a Government"? Yes? It stays there then.
 * Remember: "Historical revisionists in the community often invoke “neutrality,” one of the pillars of Wikipedia, to defend their positions, claiming their views are neutral." -Object404 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * For it to be consistent, then I will later label those leaders as kleptocrats too based on available evidences so Marcos will not be singled out anymore. Thank you for the great idea. Tagaaplaya (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The term kleptocrat is not controversial when referring to Mr. Marcos since this is a matter of fact supported by reliable sources and is also a matter of jurisprudence under Philippine law. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you provide any resource I can look up in which the Philippine Constitution or its law has specific mention to what constitutes as "kleptocratic" practices? Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The explanatory note of Senate Bill No. 733, which eventually became RA 7080, defined plunder as equally apt terms to kleptocracy or economic treason. The same was definition was quoted in G.R. No. 148965 (Jinggoy Estrada vs Sandiganbayan) and Criminal Case No. 26558 (People of the Philippines vs Joseph Estrada). Tagaaplaya (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not misinterpret the ruling made by the Supreme Court as valid use of the term "kleptocracy" in this encyclopedia. "Plunder, a term chosen from other equally apt terminologies like kleptocracy and economic treason..." understand that what this sentence means is that the court chooses to use the term "plunder" rather than "kleptocracy" it's a one-way inference that makes it illogically inconsistent to do the reverse. The court merely mentioned "kleptocracy" as well as "economic treason" to substitute it with a more formal term "plunder" the court has never described what "kleptocratic" practices are instead they provided a reference from that term to do away from the negative connotations of the term. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The courts literally said plunder is equal to kleptocracy, I don't know what's even more clearer than that. That means plunder practices are kleptocratic practices. Even if the two courts ruling may have been lacking as you claimed, the Philippine judiciary has no monopoly over the definition of kleptocracy/kleptocrat or to define Marcos as a kleptocrat. The rest of the world through the national governments, academia and media already consider him as such based on overwhelming evidences. Tagaaplaya (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "The courts literally said plunder is equal to kleptocracy", emphasis on your usage of "literally", please don't, do take the meaning too literally, yes the court just said "kleptocracy" as a matter of convenience and common parlance is the same as plunder there is no debating that. But that's just a matter of addressing terminologies, "Plunder, a term chosen from..." is your clue here that the court will choose to use the term plunder rather than "kleptocracy". Understand that the term has negative connotations akin to describing Hitler a mass murderer (which he was) but it's not written like that because using that term is suggestive of a strong tone, this is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed, it should be akin to reading a book not listening to a person speaking. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, I actually put those references cited before the latest edit. Just humoring him, though I have previously described other leaders like Estrada and Najib Razak as kleptocrats. Tagaaplaya (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't write anything on this encyclopedia with humorous intent. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe changing multiple articles to observe consistency of one article that differed is wise, it doesn't seem right to change a convention post facto just because of one instance, it's both a waste of effort and goes to show one's opinionated intentions. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Other leaders, similar to Marcos, being a kleptocrat is not an opinion, or just solely for consistency (as they have already been described as kleptocrats in Wikipedia even before inconsistency is pointed out, hereby debunking the claim), but a fact supported by reliable sources (journal articles, news reports and court decisions).Tagaaplaya (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have said repeatedly already I am not debating whether or not Ferdinand Marcos is a kleptocrat by anyone's definition of the term, I am merely pointing out that the term should not be used in the first-person tone so as to give readers the impression that Wikipedia has made an objective verdict as a consequence of editors unable to separate their political alignments from writing professionally, as someone else here has suggested to edit other wikis of leaders being branded as "kleptocrats". Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Marcos was a dictator and a kleptocrat (pre-edit writing)" and "Adolf Hitler was the dictator" are written in the same tone. I don't understand how you claim the former is written in first-person and so is not neutral but the other is. Their written as that because that's how facts are written, unless you think that his kleptocracy is actually debatable. According to Wikipedia, to achieve impartial tone one must provide "unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article" but I don't really think alternative viewpoints (that he was not a kleptocrat) exist from any reliable source. Objectivity (in contrast to subjectivity) is very important to achieve neutrality, I don't understand why you are against a verdict being objective whatever "objective verdict" means. There is no such phrase or similar ones even being discussed in Wikipedia page on Neutral point of view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagaaplaya (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I just commented, the term "kleptocrat" is not neutral because of its strong tone, we don't even use "autocrat" to describe dictators. "Dictator" has entered into formal parlance because it does not provoke any strong feeling to the reader. Some dictatorships throughout history were praised by some people, Julius Caesar for example or Napeoleon Bonaparte, although this now crosses the blurry lines of emperorship to which the latter had legitimate mandate. "Kleptocrat" has almost if not always be heard negatively and can provoke emotions to a reader, the selection of the term borderlines subjectivity as there can be many other more neutral terms. Additionally, the way the first sentence are written to describe a person need not to cover every description. Following convention, the first few descriptions are the most notable qualities of the person. We can reserve the negative qualities for the next sentence or paragraph, like almost all other biographical wikis, to tone the first few words describing a person with such negativity is subjectively suggestive of the editor's disdain of the person. Does Wikipedia hate Marcoses, or any person for that matter? If not, then it serves to be on the right side to use neutral, encyclopedic tone when describing a person no matter how hated they are by any number of people. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The term kleptocrat is neutral and factual. Or would you prefer we use the term thief, which is a huge understatement in this case? -Object404 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Kleptocrat is not a neutral or encyclopedic language as that term has devolved to be used as a pejorative to chastise a person for wrongdoing alleged or factual. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't even have any mention of "kleptocrat" in their biographical entry for Ferdinand Marcos. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I am aware that unlike Britannica who may or may not censor, Wikipedia doesn't. That opens a lot of moral issues with such freedom of choice, with the timing of the Philippine elections duly considered, there is a question of should we be allowing this free and open-source encyclopedia to be used as a political tool, the use of censoring a term or not does seem to enter that territory, so while your intentions might be pure and based on what you think is right, consider the repercussions it would do to a reader who due to a poor choice of terms are swayed by opinion because of how they felt after reading this article, the tone has changed overtime, but to my perception there is still some tone I can sense that doesn't feel neutral, overall the revision before yours is sufficient. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is mere statement of fact when it is said that Marcos was a kleptocrat. No more, no less. -Object404 (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not surprising why academia is strongly anti-Marcos, in light of clear evidence there's no denying of verifiable history. There's no historical revisionism for my proposal in observance of neutrality and consistency, historical revisionism shouldn't be confused with tempered writing, what I would propose now is to disenthrall editors of this page from their own feelings and opinions when writing so as not to give readers the impression that Wikipedia is dictating historical facts itself as some unconscious feelings makes its way to the language used.


 * The current edit as of writing this is enough, I'm satisfied with the edit that the term "kleptocracy" is uttered in a third-person language instead. Kleptocrat or Kleptocracy is not a formal language, while it's acceptable in some poorer quarters of speech, in an encyclopedia, it's not. Most encyclopedia's I've read (as much as I could remember) have limited the use of the term to describe corrupt governments as the term is too broad. Many things can be described as a kleptocracy, be it a shady real estate business to companies discreetly selling client information to third parties, etc. An encyclopedia should present all sides to the reader, regardless if one side is more numerous than the other and leave it for the reader to decide their conclusion, as I've said before, it's not for Wikipedia to give readers the conclusion. In some earlier edits, this wiki can make anyone hate the subject person of this article.


 * Take the wiki for Adolf Hitler's as an example, the language used doesn't draw any disdain to him when reading, despite the millions of people who died in the genocide he instigated which is a more heinous crime than corruption. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. Republic Act No. 10368, which created the Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission and the Human Rights Violations Claims Board, is one such example. According to this law, plundered funds from the Marcoses are earmarked to build the Freedom Memorial Museum and provide reparations to victims of human rights violations as ways of promoting transitional justice through truth telling and reparations. As such, it's safe to say that the Marcoses are kleptocrats and human rights violators without violating Wikipedia policies. -Crisantom (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not a question if Ferdinand Marcos is a kleptocrat, we can all have a say on that. We can categorize Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a kleptocrat too if we want, but in terms of objectivity, the term is too subjective to be even considered for use in an encyclopedia. This is not an article in the same way one would write a op-ed, this is an encyclopedic entry and as such only the highest standards of writing which includes but not limited to choosing tempered words fit for encyclopedic language must be used. As I said already, the way the term is used presently is fine, because it's used in a third-person tone, if what you're suggesting is that it should be written like it is coming from Wikipedia's own voice then it loses its encyclopedic temperance as it's being stated in an objective manner. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * GMA maybe a kleptocrat, but she can't be categorized as such as it was not proven in courts (acquitted by the Supreme Court) and there's not enough literature calling her that. Her case is very different from Marcos, whose kleptocracy is as factual as Hitler being a dictator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagaaplaya (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite GMA's acquittal, she can still be described as such as there's some Filipinos that feel that way about her, but we cannot use it either way in an encyclopedia is at would seem to heed on the popular consensus rather than an objective fact. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling against the Marcos', unless the court exactly words out "kleptocrat", "kleptocratic", etc. in its written ruling, it shouldn't be the basis of objectivity of the term's usage. Unless the Philippine Constitution or its laws specifically mentions the term and what constitutes as "kleptocratic" practices. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * G.R. No. 152154 by the Supreme Court actually did refer to them having a kleptocracy, in this exact word. There is no such thing as "dictator practices" in Phl law, yet we accept as fact that Marcos is a dictator, so why you make it seem to be the most important requirement to consider Marcos as a kleptocrat an objective fact (regardless of other available reliable sources)Tagaaplaya (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have said already, there is no debate here whether Marcos is a "kleptocrat" by any definition. As I have said repeatedly already that that term is not a neutral tone. "Dictator" is neutral for the reasons I stated above and we have exact international definitions of what dictatorships are. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is correct: that Marcos is a kleptocrat has also been established in courts in the Philippines and around the world, particularly in the forfeiture cases lodged against the Marcos family estate. The Philippine Supreme Court has at least three decisions forfeiting assets from Swiss bank deposits, foundations, and the Panama corporation Arelma SA. Courts in Zurich, New York, Singapore, etc. have ruled that various Marcos assets are ill-gotten or of criminal origin. This means that the family's kleptocracy is more than just the opinion of individuals and individual op-ed writers, it is a fact substantiated by legal systems around the world. -Crisantom (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It should also matter that Kleptocracy is a defining characteristic for the Marcoses among other dictators. While there other dictators out there, it is Ferdinand and Imelda who hold the world record for greatest robbery of a government. - Thundersub (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why some editors here perceive my argument as doubting the Marcoses' practices. There is no doubt in light of evidence. My point still remains that the term is not suited in an encyclopedia (check out the entry for Ferdinand Marcos on encyclopedia.com, there is no mention of "kleptocracy", although I would be fascinated to know if there are any well-known encyclopedias out there that describes Marcos the same way this wiki does). It borderlines to a pejorative term that has the effect of readers feeling a negative emotion from the editors, like I said, the current edit using the term in third-person is okay, if editors feel they can't avoid the term or substitute it with a better term.
 * Additionally, if we follow this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy#Examples, the record for the greatest embezzlement of public funds would go to former Indonesian president Suharto. Although it is not a contest, any amount of embezzled public funds perpetrated especially by those in power should be frowned upon. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Since my edit request of the first paragraph was already answered and is reflected in the current revision, I'm marking this section as answered. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely, Marcos is a kleptocrat and he may be called that, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. There is no need to avoid these terms. When referring to the Marcoses the words are hardly controversial or contentious. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the words "kleptocrat" and "kleptocracy" are subjective and that editors must limit the use of these terms on Wikipedia. "Kleptocrat" and "kleptocracy" are used in news media and even in scholarly contexts and their meaning is not typically considered ambiguous. Crisantom (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Historians, Political scientists, economists, and journalists all call Marcos a kleptocrat.       That's pretty authoritative and definitive. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Restoring the term kleptocrat in its simplified form. To cite all the categories of experts (which are extensive) who categorize Marcos as a kleptocrat just makes the text unnecessarily long. -Object404 (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We have already reached a consensus to use the term "kleptocrat" in a third-person language, not in Wikipedia's own voice. Please do not make any changes unilaterally until a new consensus is reached, I suggest you review this section what has been discussed, for the meantime I'm undoing the changes you made on the first paragraph. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked all related wikis on previous leaders who too were branded as "kleptocrats" there weren't any changes made and they were never described in first-person language as so in their respective wikis. Funny enough, there's still no mention of kleptocracy in Suharto's wiki despite ranking No. 1 in embezzled wealth in the Kleptocracy wiki. Others wikis keep the usage of the term minimal unlike in this. Unless a new consistency is established, best not change it because it gives an impression that Wikipedia is singling out Marcos. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we had not reached consensus, as can be seen by 's comment. -Object404 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone else has answered my request with the edit and it seemed as a compromise to keep the term "kleptocrat" in the first paragraph but on a different tone. That was the understood consensus. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Where? -Object404 (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant to say that someone has fulfilled my request of changing how the term kleptocrat is voiced. There wasn't any edit of the first paragraph after that until you unilaterally undid that revision, commenting "Marcos is definitely a kleptocrat" as you seem to suggest that there was a discussion, there is no discussion whether Marcos is DEFINITELY a kleptocrat or not, the revision was made on the standpoint of using encyclopedic choice of terms which was not even done as I originally intended but it became a compromise to keep the term but no longer on a first-person language. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not "unilaterally" undo that revision. That was the default state of the article before you arrived here. -Object404 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the reason you stated for undoing that revision you even commented "Marcos is definitely a kleptocrat" like out of the blue you have decided that for everyone disregarding what was just been discussed here. Also as I have repeatedly pointed out among many other reasons, it's not consistent to how other "kleptocrats" in this encyclopedia are described, the issue of consistency hasn't even been resolved. Saruhato for instance has no mention of "kleptocrat" in any section in the wiki despite ranking first in the example section of of the Kleptocracy wiki. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith, but with respect, I posit that the removal of the term kleptocrat was done without consensus, amid the discussion that was ongoing at the time of the edit. -Crisantom Crisantom (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It wasn't removed, only the tone was changed as a compromise. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I regret to hear that you along with Object404 hasn't voiced your objections with the revision that was made or it was simply misunderstood, I assumed that that revision was a compromise for both sides as I intended to have the term completely removed from the first paragraph as I firmly believed that the term isn't fit for encyclopedic use. But I hope we could reach a better compromise if this doesn't satisfy. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not have consensus. -Object404 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is the term unfit for encyclopedic use? We are all in agreement that Marcos was a kleptocrat, are we not? All the necessary authorities consider Marcos to be a kleptocrat: Historians, Political scientists, economists, and journalists, and that's pretty authoritative and definitive. -Object404 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Read my comment above. Also, no, you misunderstood that I have agreed to describe Marcos objectively as a kleptocrat. Like I said, the term is now being used as a pejorative term. If we follow the convention you are insisting we use here then we should edit so many wikis here of people who has done great wrongdoings like Adolf Hitler, despite murdering millions of Jews systematically there is no direct term used in the wiki that branded Hitler as a murderer when historians, politicians, economists and journalists have described him as such which is pretty authoritative and definitive. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, maybe that term would be suitable in the Simple English Wikipedia which ironically has no part of the wiki branding him as a thief which is the simpler term for "kleptocrat" as you said. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Another hindsight, why don't we use that wiki as the skeleton of editing this wiki. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why kleptorat despite of the projects he made ? He is the only president who was able to create billions of project that until now Filipinos benefiting. I feel so sad about this article. 103.150.202.89 (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Billions of project" is an overstatement. "Billions of pesos worth of projects" is much more correct, but even then, those billions of pesos came from foreign debt that remained unpaid even as he left office. Chlod (say hi!) 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledging the concern that "kleptocrat" is possibly being used in a pejorative sense. I therefore propose that we consider that the term kleptocrat is used in mass media and academic journals. Let us consider the fact that Marcos is a kleptocrat as supported by court documents and laws. In the article, the word kleptocrat is not being used subjectively, rather it is used to describe an objective fact. It is used not to express a matter of opinion but simply to state a matter of fact and therefore may be used without any issue. Crisantom (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you bring up the Adolf Hitler article and your arguments for not using kleptocrat here are the exact same arguments for not using dictator, and the Hitler article uses "dictator" in the opening sentence. Your objections hold no water. Kleptocrat as used in this article is an objective term, and is one of Ferdinand Marcos's definitive characteristics as known by the world at large. He is labeled as such by historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists, and which is very authoritative and definitive. That all of them label him as such makes the term completely acceptable in labeling him as such. The term is also completely suitable for use in Wikipedia, as it has an entry for kleptocrat/kleptocracy (redirect). -Object404 (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the term kleptocrat here is not used as a pejorative. It is used here as a concise, accurate description of the article subject. -Object404 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term is a statement of fact, not a pejorative, and add that it is a factual assertion separate from Marcos' holding of office. And Marcos is better known internationally for the Kleptocracy, rather than just for being President. Although of course, the two are linked since it was the office that allowed the possibility of plunder at the scales asserted by the various courts. Kleptocrat should not have been removed without consensus. - Thundersub (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the use of the term obectively is appropriate, it's not as simple as stating a fact just because so many commentators have used the term when there's a better term to use or a more appropriate tone the term can be delivered if it can't be avoided. I disagree that using the term kleptocrat couldn't be used without impressing a negative or chastising tone to the subject. Dictator is not a pejorative as it is an official title used by the Roman Republic, while "autocrat" has been used by politicians pejoratively which isn't used here in an encyclopedia @Object404 counterargument doesn't hold any logical ground, if we are use to use your convention like I mentioned on the basis that so many commentators have used a particular term whether it is pejorative or not as in my example of using the term "murderer" in Hitler's wiki then we should use every term without temperance. Marcos too has been labeled a "thief" why isn't it used here? There's a wiki for thievery too so it should be used in first person so is "murderer" because there's a wiki for murder as well.

Despite objections of the use of term, I find it strange why this has been debated strongly when other wikis of leaders who are similar to Marcos has little or no mention of "kleptocrat" in their respective wiki, Saruhato for example, my point for consistency and convention still remains. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Look. As for good articles, Seung-Hui Cho (good article class) is stated to be a mass-murderer in his opening sentence. Terry Peder Rasmussen, good article as well, is stated to be a serial killer. Ted Bundy (good article) is stated to be an American serial killer who "kidnapped, raped, and murdered" in his opening sentence. All of these descriptions may seem "pejorative" to your sensibilities, but they are not. They are simply neutral facts. You know what, you're the only person who has argued strongly against the term kleptocrat in this entire conversation, so I'm just going to restore the term to its original form in the article before you came along. Ferdinand Marcos is a thief and has been labeled as the world's greatest robber of a government in fact, so he's not just any ordinary thief. Kleptocrat is the most appropriate, concise and accurate description of one of the things he is best known for. And again, all the authoritative experts label him as such: historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists. He is a kleptocrat, plain and simple. Whatever emotions you attach to the term are your own. It is just a plain statement of fact. -Object404 (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those articles are different as the crimes that were committed are more direct and immediately consequential. I'm bewildered to why you couldn't see this revision as a compromise for our disagreement, I for one am against the use of the term in the first paragraph and you want the term to be used in a first-person tone, this revision is a middle ground for that. It doesn't matter if it's factual or not, it's simply a question of convention as you can clearly see from the title of this section "Consistency of Wikipedia's use of the term 'kleptocracy'", having the term written in a first-person tone would break that established convention. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your argument makes no sense and Marcos's kleptocracy had a lasting impact - his kleptocracy set back the Philippine economy by 21 years -> https://imgur.com/a/K5chqSX . I don't see a problem with the "first person" issue as you mention it as it is applied by the 3 articles I mentioned above. It doesn't break established conventions at all. You're the only one making this argument. -Object404 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It does matter that the statement is factual. Crisantom (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We are not in agreement yet, you haven't answered my question for why Marcos has to be labeled like this while other wikis of people who are described as kleptocrats aren't, for consistency sake I'm keeping the revision. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Another thing, the first paragraph has been this way for nearly 5 months until you decided that it no longer satisfies you and unilaterally changed it without discussion. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the assertion that Marcos is a kleptocrat is not factual or objective? If so please provide proof. Crisantom (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I already answered that question, it doesn't matter if its factual or not, I already countered arguments to why the term isn't suitable in an encyclopedic language when there's a plethora of terms that can be used in its place. As a matter of convention of consistency with other wikis, it shouldn't be used at all especially in the opening paragraph. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A plethora huh? Give me at least 5 terms that can be used in its place succinctly. I'm sorry but no, kleptocrat/kleptocracy is the most concise term that can be use to describe one of Marcos's defining traits/regime. And no your arguments thus far have been countered and hold no water. -Object404 (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It matters a great deal that the statement is factual. Are there reliable sources that say Mr. Marcos was not a kleptocrat? Crisantom (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Why were you silent in the last 5 months, only now you have voiced your objections, the timing is curious especially that the 2022 general elections are coming I hate to think that there is some ulterior motive behind this but I am optimistic that you are a professional and wouldn't have this kind of motive. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no ulterior motive here. We are merely upholding objective facts here. Answer the question: was marcos a kleptocrat? -Object404 (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have to answer that question. Did he use his office to plunder billions of wealth from Filipinos? The courts have decided he did to some extent. It doesn't have to be described from me, you, politicians, economists and the academia, all that are just labels to how people would express their findings. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to know the difference between political scientists and politicians. No, please answer the question. -Object404 (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I already answered your question. I'm seeing this as an attempt to redirect the discussion away from my main objections. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I meant to type political scientists Yes I know the difference, do not judge one's intellect from a typographical error. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lastly, I kept repeating myself here that we don't have to discuss whether Marcos is a kleptocrat or not. I have made the following main objections:
 * 1. Is the term suitable for encyclopedic use, considering the term becoming a pejorative in common parlance
 * 2. Would it break the established convention considering other similar wikis have minimal or no use of the term Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes it is completely suitable for encyclopedic use. See the articles Seung-Hui Cho, Terry Peder Rasmussen, and Ted Bundy, whose opening descriptions might be considered by YOU as "pejorative" terms when they are simple statement of facts, same as the term "kleptocrat".
 * 2. See the articles Seung-Hui Cho, Terry Peder Rasmussen, and Ted Bundy, whose opening descriptions might be considered by YOU as "pejorative" terms when they are simple statement of facts, same as the term "kleptocrat", hence the usage of the term "kleptocrat" in this article breaks no norms. I'm sorry, but your main objections hold no water. Kleptocrat as used in this article is objective and factual. Nothing more, nothing less. You are subjecting it to your own personal interpretation, when historians, political scientists, economists and journalists have already classified Marcos as such. These are all expert authorities on the subject, whatever you may feel about the term. Kleptocrat is an objective, and factual desciption of Ferdinand Marcos. In all of your agruments on this already overly-long talk section, you have not been able to dispute this. -Object404 (talk) 09:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, those are exemptions as I already pointed out, they are people who have directly committed a crime with their bare hands. Secondly, serial killer isn't a pejorative, it's a legal term so is murder. Thirdly, the reason why mass murderer isn't used in Adolf Hitler's opening statement is because he has used his office to commit those acts, not by his own bare hands so there are exemptions for when it is used. Fourthly, we are talking about the term "kleptocrat" here, your counterargument bares no substance because it's an unrelated example. See Suharto's article a leader with similar traits but in the article has no mention of "kleptocrat" or "kleptocracy" in any section. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are they suddenly "exemptions" and not a rule? You're being subjective here. Also, the Supreme Court of the Philippines talks about Marcos's kleptocracy here: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/48708 and here: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/54791 . Why is it unrelated? Also, just because the term isn't used with Suharto's article yet doesn't mean it can't be used in this article. In fact, consensus, including yours, is that the term is fine to use in the article. Your objection is stylistic. Now look at the opening sentence. It's awkward because it lists the authoritative and definitive experts that have classified Marcos as a kleptocrat as opposed to simplifying it by just stating the objective fact (supported by definitive authorities on the subject: historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists) that he is a kleptocrat, turning it into a better sentence. -Object404 (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Marcos kleptocracy has been attested to by court decisions, academic sources, and investigative news reports. Are these not reliable sources? May we have reliable sources that dispute these sources? Crisantom (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I already refuted that, read above, the courts did mention the term "kleptocrat" but as a matter of clarification of terms, the court didn't call Marcos a kleptocrat. You do not understand, if anything you are suggesting that there are stylistic errors on the articles you have mentioned so far and yes they do break convention, they are the exemptions whether they need to be tweaked or not, you are cherry picking those articles to substantiate your argument when the vast majority of stylistic convention that's been used here would differ. Yes I said the use of the term if it can't be avoided is fine as a compromise so long as it's not used in first-person in the opening paragraph. Bringing up the rulings of the courts if we use that as the standard authority here then it would be as twist of interpretation to use the term when the ruling has only mentioned the term as a matter of clarification, not as a judgment. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You putting the term "kleptocrat" under your personal interpretation and color, when reliable source, authoritative and definitive experts like historians, political scientists, economists and journalists have already classified Marcos as a kleptocrat. Your insistence in this format is making the sentence overly long when it can be simplified to just "kleptocrat", because the reliable sources and experts that matter have already classified him as such. Besides, Wikipedia makes no judgements. It is the reliable sources that do, and the reliable sources say that Ferdinand Marcos is objectively a kleptocrat. You have agreed that he is a kleptocrat, yes? -Object404 (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are repeating the same argument you are making that I have already refuted. Why choose a minimalist opening when the subject is a controversial figure, additional context is necessary to temper terms that have cultural connotations and if its use is unavoidable. Brevity isn't elegance if it takes away important context. If you insist on brevity then why not remove the term altogether in the opening paragraph and have a section explaining the views of historians and other authoritative figures of why his administration can be labeled as a "kleptocracy" I find it strange why "kleptocrat" would only be mentioned once in this wiki without further explanation as if the term just has to be etched in. I'm not opposed to a section dedicated entirely to explaining his "kleptocrat" label. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't be reading replies until Monday, for the time being, this revision is the current status quo as months had passed without clear objections of the revision, until now. Don't make any changes with how "kleptocrat" is used in the opening paragraph until we could agree on a format. Don't change the status quo. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if we can't agree on a format or a compromise we might have to involve the DRN to settle this dispute as there doesn't seem to be any indication of reaching a settlement or compromise and this section is becoming lengthy. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not refuted that reliable sources: authoritative and definitive experts like historians, political scientists, economists and journalists have already classified Marcos as a kleptocrat. You also agree that Marcos is a kleptocrat. It is not a matter of "minimalism", but being of an encyclopedic tone. Kleptocrat is a neutral, factual and objective term when describing Ferdinand Marcos, just like how Al Capone is classified as a gangster. Also, why not change it? The term "kleptocrat" was the status quo for years until you came along. And there was a clear objection when the state was left hanging 5 months ago. In this entire conversation and section, despite many editors dipping in, you're the only one who's had objections with the single, objective and factual term "kleptocrat". -Object404 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Marcos should be directly labelled as a kleptocrat. I think almost editors active here also agree except Jay.zero21 9911 since 2021. Tagaaplaya (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not mistake silence as an agreement, and do not claim to speak for a majority as that's ambiguous here considering some editors would just acquiesce without necessarily agreeing. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet you yourself claimed consensus on using third-person-language days ago despite denial from other editors? I respectfully suggest to not mistake disagreements as consensus. Thank you. Tagaaplaya (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no official authority that could warrant the term being used in wikivoice besides the courts of the countries within its jurisdiction as I have already pointed out that the mere mention of the term in a ruling when the court has only mentioned it as a matter of clarification doesn't justify its use. No matter how many economists, journalists, political scientists/commentators would opt to use the term, it cannot be used in first-person as that would suggest that Wikipedia adopts a side, it's not universal as some authoritative commentators would not use the term, silent about the term or opts to use a different one. In recent developments the Guinness World Records have taken down Marcos' record of "the greatest robbery in government" pending verification of its sources which is likely to be the same sources used here to justify the use of the term.
 * Do not fall on the assumption of being on a majority on the basis of editors actively responding on this issue, others may just see no point in trying to convince what they perceive as close-minded, slippery still, it's difficult to point out who's in the majority or not. So it's best to consider the objections of even just one editor and find a compromise if neither sides could agree. Wikipedia isn't a parliament. There is merit to my objections on the basis of convention. Other wikis of similar leaders has not opted to use the style used in this article, this is the only wiki the stands out with the rest.
 * I will be seeking assistance from the DRN at this point, hoping to attract experienced editors and express their views regarding this issue. I request there will be no changing of how "kleptocrat" is used in this article until this is settled. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with this Wikipedia rule that you state: "There is no official authority that could warrant the term being used in wikivoice besides the courts of the countries within its jurisdiction". Can you please point it out for me and show me the link? This is what WP:WIKIVOICE points to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view . It says: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." It is uncontested even by you that Ferdinand Marcos is a kleptocrat, and it is supported by numerous reliable sources. Please stop edit warring. -Object404 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Tagaaplaya (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(1) On the matter of whether Marcos is a kleptocrat, I think we have consensus. (2) So I won't press that point. On the matter of whether Kleptocrat is a pejorative term, I disagree, since there are no less-pejorative words to for kleptocracy than, well, kleptocrat. (Unless you think "plunderer" and "thief" are less pejorative, but they lose the sense of the individual using the bureaucracy for plundering purposes.) (3) To remove the fact of the kleptocracy is to remove a well-asserted fact - and one which the subject, Mr. Marcos, is more historically known for than any other. So. On the basis of points 2 and 3, I will argue that removing kleptocracy from the lead would be tantamount to censorship. (4)But as for the question of "wikivoice" and whether the article should try to list down all the reliable sources that said "Marcos was a plunderer," I submit that at some point consensus between the academe, international courts, Philippine courts, news media, and history texts is so broad that attempting to list down the sources is ludicrous. I mean, just the list I just made is already long to the point of being pedantic. This is clearly a case of Call a spade a spade. Marcos was a kleptocrat, and the article shouldn't mince words about it. (5) As for consistency across other articles, I'd call that the other pages' respective problems. Just because a fact hasn't been expressed on one article should not prevent another article from expressing that fact, given that it is a fact, and provided as much evidence as this. Again, Marcos was a kleptocrat, and the article shouldn't mince words about it. - Thundersub (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The term kleptocrat needs to stay in the lead. The term is supported by reliable sources. The fact that Mr. Marcos was a kleptocrat is supported by court records, republic acts, academic journals, academic conferences, news media. There are no reliable sources that contend otherwise. And on Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say. Is the term pejorative? No, it is not. I find no proof to support that assertion and the argument is false. Is there a convention that states the term should not be used on Wikipedia? I see no discussion to support the claim. Calling Mr. Marcos a kleptocrat is merely stating a fact. It is a matter of fact, an objective fact, and is by no means controversial or contentious. No need to shy away from the term. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. If Mr. Marcos was a kleptocrat then he should be called a kleptocrat. - Crisantom (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having reached to a conclusion that Wikipedia has lower standards than other encyclopedias (considering it is crowd-sourced), I will acquiesce with strong reservations to the rejection and resistance of my proposal. I do not agree to the counterarguments brought up here by anyone and I stand firm with my objections, there are double standards being applied here and I cannot help but perceive that there seems to be a need to demonize this figure. I'll cease answering comments on this wiki for the purpose of ending this discord as I acknowledge that I lack personal experience with politics to which this disagreement is entering. Objectivity can become subjective when a perception of a term is not as objective as a term intends it to be, why risk using a language that can be construed differently by people having different points of view? I have no doubt that objectivity is being misused here to justify a subjective and personal view of a person. Reliable and authoritative sources that use a particular term should be used with discretion, not as a "just because" basis. Justifying a usage of a term just because there are reliable sources is an appeal to authority fallacy. There doesn't seem to be any indication that editors concerned with this wiki are open to changes to its delivery. For that, I concede to the editors who feel they are the administrators of this particular wiki, I presume they have infinite knowledge of the subject and are specific experts with unquestionable sources. All answers given so far are grounded on the perspective of technicalities and rules not on intrinsic principles. There is no doubt that the institutions Wikipedia prides itself of are designed to create a respected and reliable encyclopedia, free and open for all. It saddens me to see that the very institutions can be used in curious ways to undermine its purpose. I am aware of its bureaucratic nature which both has positive and negative effects to the benefit or hindrance of both editors and readers, there are room for improvement on this aspect. A bureaucracy would be helpful in smoothing out erratic changes which may or may not reflect present knowledge or views, but it can also be used to mask questionable justifications on the pretense that such actions or judgments were based on established rules. I do not have the time or dedication to study these specific institutions and apply it masterfuly to win arguments, not only is it a waste of effort but it can be disruptive and suggestive of a personal vendetta which if I have self-respect, confidence on my intellect, and professionalism would never allow myself to be dragged in no matter how blurry the lines will appear, no matter how many reasons I would convince myself. Nevertheless, this is my opinion after all, I'm open to be proven wrong and learn from my mistakes. Everyone has blindspots, I acknowledge I have some of them. But I stand firm with my objections with openness to being proven wrong. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What's there to demonize? Ferdinand Marcos's actions spoke for themselves and we are merely using factual language here supported by historical record, not "technicalities" as you describe. You still haven't presented your "plethora" of alternative terms that can take the place of kleptocrat, and I doubt that there is any that captures Marcos's actions better. -Object404 (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus was reached by a due process you requested yourself. We followed the rules. It is unbecoming of anyone to badmouth Wikipedia just because they fail to get others to agree with their opinion via this democratic process. Your opinion is not superior neither authoritative. Your arguments fell short and you've already been proven wrong. All that is left is for you to recognize it and fully respect the result of the dispute resolution. Thank you. Tagaaplaya (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 20 June 2022
Category:Fascist rulers should be removed, Marcos wasn't a fascist, and there isn't anything to support this description. -- 2804:248:f6ef:5a00:5f6:3a4b:750:ff02 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing really contentious about this edit, and the category was added very recently, there is simply nothing supporting the assertion that he was a fascist, he is not commonly and consistenly defined as such, and his regime didn't really have fascist characteristics, he was just a regular dictator. -- 2804:248:f6ef:5a00:5f6:3a4b:750:ff02 (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 26 June 2022
Category>Fascist rulers should be removed, there is nothing to support the description of Marcos as a "fascist". -- 2804:248:f6c0:8f00:c1a7:43e8:74ec:4e8c (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Chlod (say hi!) 02:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Dictator?
Get your facts right wikipedia. People of the Philippines is begging you 2001:569:55F5:3F00:B1DA:A582:260:5564 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources that assert he wasn't one, please list them for evaluation and comparison with the ones that do. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

All sources are gotten from the garbage media Jumark27 (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Eddie Garcia said a Filipino actor.
He said Ferdinand E Marcos was a good president which ever he is a first president to teach to all Filipinos on how to discipline and unite one another. While Eddie Garcia said he does not experienced brutality or harassment on martial law at Ferdinand Marcos time. He also said that Ferdinand Marcos was a great president of the Philippines, he only declare the martial law for the NPA which is known as the terrorist of the Philippines. And it’s leader name is JOMA SISON the founder of (CPP/NPA/NDF) who terrorize Philippines for 50 years. 2600:8800:881A:DF00:991C:BD8A:C183:D242 (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Please provide legitimate sources to the claim. Even if it is true, Eddie Garcia's opinion doesn't matter as he was not a historian or a scholar. His opinion won't stand up to the academic consensus backed by evidences such court rulings, witness and survivor testimonies, documents from our own government, historical data and scholarly studies. Tagaaplaya (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that this kind of discussion is arguably a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, where it says "Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." - Thundersub (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

THAT IS A POOR RESEARCH
Make sure you search more in Filipinos History not by Book but by the Ones who Live in Pres.Marcos Sr. Regime. 175.176.93.142 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Such as the testimonies of these victims of Marcos' martial law in an interview by the Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses and Martial Law? Either way, primary sources are usually disallowed on Wikipedia except for specific conditions (probably none of which apply to this article). We are an encyclopedia, not a news website or a content aggregate. Chlod (say hi!) 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

FILIPINOS HISTORY BOOK WAS MANIPULATED BY THE AQUINO'S FAMILY
So when you research about Filipino History you should not only Based on Filipinos history Book, you should also ask those Elderly people who Live in Marcos Regime and you will see how disgusting those who manipulated our History Books. 175.176.93.142 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Much of the references here are from academic research and not Filipino history books. The above claim doesn't apply to this article. Chlod (say hi!) 14:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ACADEMIC RESEARCH WHO IS MANIPULATED BY THE OLIGARCHS 🤦 175.176.93.142 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to prove that at least one of the authors of the books and research papers cited here are oligarchs. These include international figures, some with credentials in the research community. If you don't have proof, then please keep your conspiracy theories off of Wikipedia. Chlod (say hi!) 15:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is common for them to tag non-Marcos or anti-Marcos supporters as 'communists' and oligarchs due to massive dis- or misinformation campaign after the late dictator's son ran for presidency.
 * The header of the IP's reply is clearly false and an effect of false information in the Philippines, fingers pointed to SMNI News Channel and pro-MArcos bloggers as the culprit.
 * Do not create hoaxes~
 * Traveler • chat 11:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, this is clearly a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, which I think qualifies this subsection for deletion.- Thundersub (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thundersub: That would usually be the case when a message is first posted, but not when editors have already intervened. Just let it slowly fade away into the archives and move on. Chlod (say hi!) 20:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)