Talk:The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos

Original research
This article appears to be OR, and I have tagged it as such. None of the sources actually discuss the term "conjugal dictatorship"; it is just mentioned in passing in each piece. The page creator appears to be familiar with the term and has cobbled together different sources that mention it to build an article, which is considered OR and SYNTH. The first paragraph has numerous unsourced statements. Saying that the term originated from a book and then using the book as a reference for that statement is unacceptable; it does not prove that this was the first use of the term. I removed the cites from the last sentence because they did not verify the information in the sentence. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletions without explanation
Hi Phthalocyan

Since the discussion in your talk page has been deleted, I'm copying and pasting our discussions here for continuity.

Hi. I have no problem if you delete uncited contributions. But deleting cited contributions is another matter. If you feel other contributions are not neutral, we can discuss it in the talk page within Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Also kindly note that as per Wikipedia WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Also per WP:NPOV: While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there. Thetruth16 (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I understand your addition of opposing views on the events but the entries have succumbed to unnecessary fluff and cherry picking of facts, some of which do not even represent the source itself. I also deleted several paragraphs as they have been disruptive on the overall flow of the article. Kindly consider the edits. Phthalocyan (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC) In Conjugal Dictatorship you deleted this entire entry arguing that this is not constructive? Some of the book's claims have been refuted after more than a decade since its publication. For example, the book insinuated that Marcos plotted the Plaza Miranda bombing to wipe out the entire Liberal Party leadership and that the weapon landing from China for the communists along the coast of Isabela was 'staged'. The communists have since admitted to the plot to bomb Plaza Miranda, and former NPA Victor Corpuz admitted that their plot was foiled when the weapons that they were about to receive from communist China was intercepted by the military. You can argue for neutrality, but the book made claims that is not neutral by itself. The statement above counterbalances claims made by the book which is a key principle in Wikipedia's NPOV. Also we must be guided by WP:NPOV rather than personal biases on what is neutral and what is not. If you want to police Wikipedia articles, why not delete all uncited claims / contributions, rather than deleting contributions that conforms with Wikipedia NPOV and RS? Thetruth16 (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC) I lashed out the whole edit because aside from that part, the edit was muddled with words that attempt to discredit some of the authors that are included in the article. I was planning to place them back after after I verified the source. Phthalocyan (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC) Perhaps it'd be more prudent to read the citations first before deleting? Besides if you argue that one source is biased, they are reliable per wikipedia WP:RS and there are dozens of other sources which can replace that. Oh, WP:however says that use of however should be avoided, so I deleted it. And what's wrong with the edit which says that the suspects were tried in the court first before they were convicted? You've deleted that part and now it appears that after police 'claims' they immediately got a death sentence. Thetruth16 (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conjugal dictatorship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042400/http://mysite.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty/marianog/intprin/ofreneo.html to http://mysite.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty/marianog/intprin/ofreneo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Conjugal Dictatorship.png

Tagged for OR since 2016.
The article is well referenced. There has to be specific passages on where the supposed WP:OR is or else I'll take it as a sign that the article doesn't have issues about OR. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Howard the Duck: Upon a short spot check, seems like there's not much original research here (given that most statements have citations), but there are some issues with point of view and perhaps factual accuracy. I guess the OR tag can be removed from the article, but not the factual one until a proper source check can be done.
 * I've actually been thinking of reanalyzing/rewriting the § Background and conception section for a while now but haven't found the time to do it. The conflicting views of sources make it hard to untangle which parts are actually factual and which ones might need rewriting. For one, an entire paragraph seems to violate WP:EXCEPTIONAL by only ever citing WikiLeaks (a generally unreliable source). I'm not saying that the mentioned info is fake or non-factual, but it needs some rechecking or verification. It also seems like part of this article might be better suited for the Primitivo Mijares article than this one. Sucks even more that we don't have much info on the actual conception of the book given the blind spot of the Marcos martial law period. Chlod (say hi!) 03:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no comment with the factual accuracy tag, as that was just added 2 months ago.
 * I do want to note that every tag must have a corresponding talk page discussion. If it doesn't, it has to be removed. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)