Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 7

On FA-ing Ferdinand Marcos (and related pages)
Right now, I am gathering facts for some Philippine politicians (as well as its related articles, not to mention the "People Power Revolution" because I am thinking of bringing up said articles into WP:FA status; Ferdinand Marcos are one of them, but as things stand, getting the Ferdinand Marcos article into FA quality would involve related articles that might or might not be possible also to make them FAs.


 * Ferdinand Marcos (article): The details about Marco's presidency are currently sufficient, but if this article is to be FA'ed, I would have to rewrite them after I gather enough facts to make it a cohesive WP:SUMMARY. The minute details of Marcos' approximate twenty years in power will have to be put in a separate article (including a mention about Marcos' visit to the United States and the resulting protests), but this is currently served (as per the overview infobox of Marcos) by the next article below.
 * History of the Philippines (1965–1986) (article): This article currently details the approximate twenty years of the country under Marcos. Adequate at its current state, but is it possible for that article to be FA? What about the next article below?
 * Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos (article): This is becoming tricky; this article currently gives an overview of the Philippines under martial law. Can this article stand on its two feet as an FA?
 * Proclamation No. 1081 (article): Self-explanatory, but is it possible for this article to be an FA?

I think my brain's all getting worked up over those above articles because of how currently confusing it is for a reader of Wikipedia to easily find information about martial law in the Philippines, which would somewhat raise alarm bells given the upcoming 2022 presidential election where the son of Ferdinand Marcos is one of the candidates. I say that a dedicated article about Marcos' twenty-year rule (provisional name: Presidency and dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos) would be necessary. For now, I will start this topic with this question. Given a long-term look at how these four above articles will evolve, can these articles have a chance at FA? If not, should the content of those cannot-FA articles be moved to possible-FA articles? LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos redirects to History of the Philippines (1965–1986). I had previously suggested in reconfiguring these history articles to 1946-71 (the entire Third Republic, including the Marcos presidency before martial law) and 1971-86 (Marcos presidency from martial law until the end). This would allow the creation of separate article for a standalone presidency of Ferdinand Marcos, as we have presidency articles for all presidents after Marcos. Presumably all articles can be sent to FA provided it is written brilliantly and is well-cited. Philippine history has no shortage of sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If this will allow those articles to be FA'ed, then I'm counting on you. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is what I was thinking of. The Ferdinand Marcos article itself will detail everything about Ferdinand Marcos himself, with the presidency (for size reasons) being put in a dedicated article (provisional name: Presidency and dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos). The Proc. No. 1081 article is a tossup; to keep it as a separate possible-FA article, or to be merged into an existing possible-FA article? The History of the Philippines articles will document general history about the country with parts of martial law details (the full details will be on the Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos article, which will document everything about martial law in the Philippines, including life under martial law). Presidency and dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos (provisional article name) will fully detail the reign of Marcos, starting with his first presidency in 1965 (as with all the other presidency articles of Philippine politicians) until his departure from the country in 1986 and aftermath. Can the aforementioned articles be possible-FAs under this plan? If not, what are the other plans to make these articles possible-FAs? LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentative thoughts on this, because I have to reexamine the situation: I'm neutral on FA-ing these articles, and somewhat supportive of splitting Ferdinand Marcos (the main concern being the difficulty of the split, and the inherent difficulty of identifying necessary overlaps.)
 * But I do not think Proclamation No. 1081 should be merged. That article should be about the document, which has historical and pop culture significance of its own.
 * I should also point out that the first and second terms of Marcos' presidency have their own articles. If we're seriously doing this, we should now resolve the matter of the term "dictatorship," which traditional references count as Martial Law plus the Third Term. The title "Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos" is problematic, because technically it's not the same (Martial Law was technically Sep 1972 to Jan 1981) as the "Dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos" (Sep 1972 to February 1986). Do we split, or do we retitle? - Thundersub (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Both. Presidency and dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos (provisional article name) will be split into two articles - Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos will cover Marcos' first presidency before martial law, and Dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos will cover Marcos' rule beginning from martial law until Marcos' departure from the Philippines and the aftermath (including life under martial law, plus content from the existing Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos article). The History of the Philippines (1965–1986) article will cover the "other" important events that fall under this period (including some history about Communism in the Philippines). LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep it short and sweet. "Presidency of Ferdinand Marcos" suits it best. I would have opposed separate articles for each presidential terms.
 * "Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos" would've covered the period from 1972 to 1981.
 * "History of the Philippines (1965-1986)" would be renamed to "History of the Philippines (1971-1986)" and "History of the Philippines (1946-1965)" would be renamed to "History of the Philippines (1946-1971)".
 * The term "dictatorship" isn't a formal office and is a description, as opposed to when a real "dictator of the Philippines" was given to Emilio Aguinaldo before the First Philippine Republic. Either way, the usual description of "dictatorship" which is "one-man rule," would encompass the period when Marcos ruled without a legislature, which was from 1972 to 1978, and presumably other articles would have covered that period by now. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If the title of Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos be kept, it would have to emphasize on (1) the "bad things" that Marcos did in the Philippines, (2) the effects of martial law, and (3) life under martial law. Putting the other details of the latter half of Marcos' rule (including the mention of Marcos' US visit and other "non-bad" things that Marcos did) while keeping the Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos title would make this article confusing to the reader, since they would blur the difference between the "bad things" that Marcos did and the "non-bad things" that make up part of the "other details" of the latter half of Marcos' rule, and it would hurt the article's chances of being an FA. The History of the Philippines article(s) will accommodate the details of both halves of Marcos' rule as long as it's in a WP:SUMMARY format; adding the "other details" of Marcos' second rule (including the mention of Marcos' US visit and other "non-bad" things that Marcos did) on those articles would make the sections too big to be a WP:SUMMARY, and the reader would expect the "other details" of Marcos' second rule to be in a dedicated article. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose transforming Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos as a POV fork is a bad way to go. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In your own words, do you think that the inclusion of the full details of the latter half of Marcos' rule (as with the other presidency articles) into the Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos article (with the title kept as is) is compliant with the WP:FACRITERIA? LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Any article can be compliant with FACRITERIA. For that article, the scope is for anything about martial law from 1972 to 1981. Presumably, there are something during the presidency that's not solely about martial law but that's something editors of that article have to deal with. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean to say that the details of the second half of Marcos' rule that are unrelated to martial law will have to be eventually reviewed once the Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos article (or other articles that has such details) were to hit FAC? LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't understand your question to be honest. It's quite hard to segregate things about the Marcos presidency that are not about martial law when martial law was in effect from 1972 to 1981. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I get it. Better have to talk about this when one of those articles become an FAC, I hope. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not separate. Marcos did not stop becoming president when he became a dictator. Tagaaplaya (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we heed Tagaaplaya's suggestion? LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 05:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We already have an article about the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos at History of the Philippines (1965–1986). We also have a separate article about Martial law under Ferdinand Marcos, which presumably is for the period between 1972 and 1981. What do you want to happen? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The waters here are muddy because even after 1981, Marcos kept most of his Martial Law powers. I don't think separating them is a good idea. -Object404 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late to the discussion here, but perhaps it might be worth opening up a task force for this under the banner of Tambayan Pilipinas, or maybe revive the Philippine politics task force to systematically handle these articles. Not only do we need quite some writing work on a few of these articles (none of the most viewed Philippine-related articles are FAs or GAs besides, well, Philippines), but we also need quite a few eyes on Marcos-related articles as they've been under fire recently from problematic editors. Chlod (say hi!) 14:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit requests
I think the section on this page entitled : Laws passed during the Marcos administration, should be edited or removed altogether. There are glaring sentences that are in doubt which include: The country crafted a large number of decrees, laws, and edicts during Marcos's term,  A large number of the laws passed during the term of Marcos remain in force today and are embedded in the country's legal system  and According to Imee Marcos in 2006, many of the thousands of proclamations, decrees, and executive orders Marcos issued were still in force, and few have been repealed, revoked, modified or amended.
 * What I think should be changed:


 * Why it should be changed:

Lets break it down per paragraph : 1st paragraph:

1st sentence:The sources of the sentences as stated above are from a plagiarist and a part of the Marcos disinformation network. To quote the articles below :" Political author Cecilio Arillo wrote biographies such as the 2011 book A Country Imperiled. Others who wrote in favor of the Marcoses include the late Br. Gen. Galileo C. Kintanar Sr., who worked in the intelligence sector, and Cherry Cobarrubias, a close friend of Imelda Marcos." and" Most of these authors relied on the Marcoses as sources for their books, while others resorted to plagiarism. For instance, several parts of Arillo’s 2012 book Imelda: Mothering and Her Poetic and Creative Ideas in a Troubled World, were taken verbatim from the 1995 book Circle of Life authored by Imelda Marcos."

2nd and 3rd sentence: I think there should be a context that marcos ruled through a decree and I dont believe that its useful to compare a president who ruled by a decree to a democratic government where there is a process. It would be fine if there is a necessary context. 4th sentence: From the same plagiarist as stated above. 5th sentence : Aside from that Imee Marcos has been caught lying and revising the history of the Marcos regime and is not a trusted source.

The section reads like a puff piece, of course many laws have been encoded since it is rule by one man and thru decree. Without that context it is as if he and his congress passed laws .So aside from that the 2nd and 3rd sentences are only the ones who have reputable sources. The rest are not from reputable sources.

2nd paragraph: Why is this even on this section? Masagana 99 has already been discussed in different sections and different article. Also it is misleading because it is a failure but the sentences before made it seem successful.

Changes: If the editors dont want to remove this section altogether here are my recommended edit :

Marcos ruled by decree which he used to curtail press freedom and civil liberties. From 1972 to 1986, the Marcos Administration codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees.

Thats it for now, maybe it can be expanded in the future rather than use non reputable sources. The 2nd paragraph about Masagana 99 is misplaced so I did not include that. Gretabini (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed to main points by Gretabini. Would move for these to be changed. It's not especially known in context that there was literally no legislature from September 23, 1972 until 1978, which meant Marcos was, at all reasonable definitions, an absolute dictator during this time period. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong agree that the 2nd paragraph should be deleted. It's unnecessary duplication and I posit that its deletion is uncontroversial. - Thundersub (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposed rephrasing of 1st paragraph, modifying Gretabini's proposed phrasing with Howard the Duck's note, I suggest "'Marcos ruled by decree,curtailing press freedom and civil liberties. With no legislature in place from 1972 to 1986, the Marcos Administration instead codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees.'" If necessary, think additional citations for that paragraph are easy enough to find.- Thundersub (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a legislature in place from 1978 to 1986. The Batasang Pambansa may have had bad reviews, but it existed. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I'd gotten so used to the 1986 date that I missed the error. typo changed here: "'Marcos ruled by decree,curtailing press freedom and civil liberties. With no legislature in place from 1972 to 1978, the Marcos Administration instead codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees.'" In the future perhaps, a paragraph about the nature of a PD, and the continuation of its issuances after '78 can be written. But I propose this will do for now. - Thundersub (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Change "rebuffed" to "rejected" in "However Marcos' offer was rebuffed..."
A lot of people know what "rejected" means than the word "rebuffed". Michael679089 (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikileak is better.
This article used terms that are biased. Not a fan. 195.89.24.230 (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If your definition of bias encompasses facts from reliable and impartial sources, then yes, this article is "biased". Wikileaks is not used in this article due to its reputation as an unreliable source, see WP:RSP for discussions regarding its credibility. Lastly, please be informed that talk pages are for discussion on article content (most notably, discussions on improving or modifying content), and not your feelings about the article. Chlod (say hi!) 10:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request regarding children section
The children section lists underr kids "3 with Imelda" and one, seperately as "adopted". It should list 4 under Imelda, since Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos adopted their fourth child together. It's weird to single out one child as 'adopted'. 2001:1C01:4282:9E00:4890:D5F6:7B93:49B5 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made the necessary correction. iamdumdum 13:53, January 4, 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And kindly remove the (adopted) behind Aimee Marcos' name, it's a bit odd and other biographies on Wikipedia do not denote whether or not a child is adopted or not, the adoption is mentioned in the personal life section but should not be mentioned in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:4282:9E00:4890:D5F6:7B93:49B5 (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: Human rights abuses subsection should be trimmed
As of writing this post, the readable prose size for Ferdinand Marcos now stands at 137kB. Many editors would now declare this article WP:TOOBIG for a regular to read.

I think that the Legacy section could need some shedding. We could start by abridging the Human rights abuses subsection (with some of its parts transferred to the dedicated "Human rights abuses of the Marcos dictatorship" article) that currently accounts for 1/4th of the Legacy section in terms of byte count. The "Abductions" and "Torture" sections of "Human Rights Abuses" could be consolidated into the main text, while the "Killings" sections can be summarized for WP:WEIGHT reasons. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)