Talk:Bongbong Marcos/Archive 1

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

File:Ferdinand R Marcos Jr.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ferdinand R Marcos Jr.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. → Bongbong Marcos –

  • Bongbong Marcos is the most common name for this subject. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Alvin678 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This move needs a discussion. The subject's web site is at http://bongbongm.com, but at the top of that page it gives his name as 'Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.', not Bongbong Marcos. Even in the page text his name is given as 'Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos'. If a politician uses both a full name and a nickname, you want us to use the nickname for his article? You would have us put John F. Kennedy under 'Jack'? EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If we were to use frequency on Google as a criterion, we see 2.6 million hits for 'Ferdinand R Marcos Jr' and only 127,000 for 'Bongbong Marcos'. A similar disparity is observed if you limit the search to books.google.com. Caution is needed when interpreting Google hits but this is a large difference. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Doing a Google search for an exact word or phrase "search query" (http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136861) yielded the following: "Ferdinand R Marcos Jr" about 64,300 results and "bongbong marcos" about 259,000 results. James6565 (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
        • More reliable search hits, without the middle initial, and with quotes:
          • Ferdinand Marcos Jr 793,000
          • "Ferdinand Marcos Jr" -bongbong 505.000 (In this search string, all pages with "Ferdinand Marcos Jr." without the word "Bongbong" shows up.)
            • In both cases, I can't guarantee if the hits exclusively refer to Bongbong or if daddy Ferdie was in there.
          • Bongbong Marcos 257,000 –HTD 19:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Doing a Google search for "Bong Bong Marcos" and "Bong-Bong Marcos" (with a space or dash with the nickname) produced 483,000 results. James6565 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
              • "Bong-bong Marcos" OR "Bong Bong Marcos" has 254,000 results
                • Why does "bong bong marcos" (with space) produce 483,000 results and "bong-bong marcos" (with dash) produce 483,000 results (separately) while "Bong-bong Marcos" OR "Bong Bong Marcos" only produce 254,000 results? James6565 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
                  • I dunno. In theory, "Bong Bong Marcos" and "Bong-Bong Marcos" should have an identical result as the "-" acts like a space if there's no space before it. –HTD 10:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Here's the kicker: "Bong Bong Marcos" OR "Bong-bong Marcos" OR "Bongbong Marcos" -ferdinand -jr. (All 3 variant spellings, without "Ferdinand" and "Jr") 123,000. That is just above 20% of "Ferdinand Marcos Jr" without "Bongbong" demonstrating that "Ferdinand Marcos Jr" is the most prevalent name. I'm actually interested on how search results would turn out at Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar, but I figured it would all be the same.
  • See http://www.facebook.com/bongbongmarcos and http://twitter.com/bongbongmarcos. For example, the article for William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton is under Bill Clinton (the more commonly known name for the subject). Another example, is the article for Maria Imelda Josefa Romualdez Marcos which is under Imee Marcos. Also, refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names. Alvin678 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is moved to "Bongbong Marcos", once Bongbong (there, I said it) aspires for higher office and wins (either VP or President), it will be inevitably moved back to his "more formal" birth name of "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.", as what happened to Noynoy Aquino, which became Benigno Aquino III, as the media stopped calling him exclusively as "Noynoy" and started calling him "Benigno 'Noynoy' Aquino" and even in some contexts, dropping "Noynoy" altogether.
Again, this is dependent if he does win in an election for an office higher than senator. As of now, he's called "Bongbong" colloquially, or in more formal discourses, "Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos, Jr." as seen here.
As for the Clinton comparison, I've never heard the American media calling him "William Jefferson Clinton". As in never. Same for Imee Marcos; the media don't even mention her real birth name (lol). –HTD 19:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. http://senate.gov.ph/senators/sen_bio/bmarcos_bio.asp refers to the subject as "Bongbong" (4 times) and "Bongbong Marcos" (1 time). James6565 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • On the committee list, the "Bongbong" nickname is absent, while most of the nicknames are there, and even a few of the birth names aren't there (e.g. "Lorna Regina"->"Loren", "Pilar Juliana"->"Pia", "Jose"->"Jinggoy", etc.). While that's interesting, it is also how the senators are referred to at roll call, as in "Cayetano, Alan Peter 'Compañero' S." with the "Compañero" word.
    • If anything, if we're putting "Bongbong" at the article title, we should make it "Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr." as the subject is never referred to as "Bongbong" without "Ferdinand" in formal contexts, unlike Bill, Loren, Pia, Imee and Jinggoy. –HTD 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It seems that "Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr." would be a good alternative/solution for the article title unless there is a consensus for another version. James6565 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Which is convoluted as it unnecessarily lengthens the article name without any benefit whatsoever. The name "Bongbong" only appears when it is with "Ferdinand" (and with the appendix "Jr."), so by application of logic it would seem that "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr." really is the more prevalent name, since it doesn't need the name "Bongbong" as a qualifier but the name "Bongbong" is always preceded with "Ferdinand". (See the search strings I used above.)
        • This is exemplified on your example in the Senate biography page as it is titled, and begins with, "...Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr." The use of "Bongbong" throughout the text is like the use of the word "he" in order to make it more... "personal". –HTD 17:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment While Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr. is a good redirect, it would be a very bad title for the article. Either use his real name or his nickname, but not both. Nyttend (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So what. Bamm-bamm grew up and got a new habit? If this dude wants to be Bong-bong, who are you to stop him? Signed, Pedro de Pacas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.127.210 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Bam is a political enemy lol –HTD 03:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both WP:AT and the instructions for making requested moves advise users to consider book and news results before ever thinking about posting web results, which are really quite unreliable for high numbers, don't concentrate reliable sources, and the results need to be examined in any case to be meaningful. (Disclaimer: I added that language to both locations, but it enjoys long term consensus, for good reason). Doing those searches (including searches that show how often the given name is used without any mention of bongbong, e.g. <"Ferdinand Marcos, Jr." -bongbong -"bong bong"> and searches showing that of those that do use bongbong or bong bong, many do so conjunction with providing his given name, e.g. <"bongbong Marcos" -ferdinand> and <"ferdinand bongbong Marcos" OR "ferdinand bong bong Marcos" >), indicate that Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. is significantly more common in reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please remember that his father Ferdinand Marcos was a president, so please consider that on Google searches. --Bluemask (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    Which are variously why Jr. is in every search in the quotes, and why exclusionary searches were done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think nicknames aren't as searchable as the real name. Of course, books and news articles would always say the real name more than the nickname, though Philippine media usually uses Bongbong rather than the real name Ferdinand. Arius1998 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. → Bongbong Marcos or Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr.? – Bongbong Marcos appears to be a more commonly recognizable name. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names Unitwendy (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 25 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Bongbong Marcos → Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. – The previous RM did not take into account the factors discussed with the initial RM from a few years ago.

"Bongbong" is this person's nickname or so to speak and is not his WP:COMMONNAME. Might as well move Joseph Estrada to Erap or Charice Pempengco back to Charice.

When checking the sources, the name mentioned is either "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr." or "Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos, Jr." Almost never "Bongbong Marcos" alone. Quite unlike Bill Clinton, whose real name "William" or "William Jefferson Clinton" extremely rarely appears in the news ([1]~1500 results as opposed to 2,1 million for his common name) The editors in the initial RM brought forward the fact that Google searches for "Bongbong Marcos" got higher numbers than "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr." It should be noted however, that these articles note his name as "Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos, Jr.".[2] It makes sense to keep the article at "Bongbong Marcos" if "Ferdinand" isn't even mentioned. The encyclopedic value alone of keeping the article at his full, non-nickname should be merit enough to move.

Even if editors feel this article belongs at its current title, a wider consensus should have been obtained. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We are the only Wikipedia to present something different. GregKaye 11:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Name is always mentioned in full in English news similar to Benigno Aquino III where they both copy from the names of their famous fathers.--RioHondo (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The official website, and official social media accounts such as Facebook and Twitter accounts use Bongbong Marcos. Philippine television and radio frequently use Bongbong Marcos. Sarin75 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Sarin75: The secondary sources (news, etc.) trump the primary sources. Take a look at Talk:Charice Pempengco.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Please refer to the Google News (secondary source) results in the comment below. It appears that both primary and secondary sources frequently use Bongbong Marcos. Sarin75 (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
        • I'd like to point out once again that primary sources are irrelevant when the secondary sources say otherwise. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm seeing a majority of news coverage from reliable sources using the name Bongbong. The evidence of official use given above by Sarin75 is also convincing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Check out Google News results for Senator Marcos. While Bongbong appears in a lot of the results, it is almost always accompanied by the first name of Ferdinand Jr. And it is interesting to see that English international media leans on using the full name more often without mentioning the nickname. In most sources, he is always referred to as Marcos son.--RioHondo (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know if I'm seeing the same articles as you, but of the headlines showing up with a first name in them I get:
    • Bongbong Marcos mulls over Palace run
    • Bongbong open to running as Binay's VP
    • Bongbong on Marcos era: What am I to say sorry for?
    • Bongbong on 2016: No downside to being a Marcos
    --Yaksar (let's chat) 11:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Yaksar: I'd like to point out that all those articles use "Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos, Jr". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The frequent use of "Bongbong" in the news headlines and article titles as cited above appears to support that Bongbong Marcos meets WP:CRITERIA: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. Sarin75 (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
      @Sarin75: No, because that would only apply if his full name was not mentioned at all, similarly to Bill Clinton. Like I've said over and over now.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 20:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If using frequency on Google as a criterion, there are 478,000 results for “Bongbong Marcos” and 86,500 results for "Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.” Sarin75 (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

(https://panamapapers.icij.org/blog/20160509-offshore-database-release.html) On May 9, 2016, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists released the searchable database from Panama Papers. His two sisters, Imee Marcos Manotoc and Irene Marcos Araneta, have been named, along with his nephews Fernando Manotoc, Matthew Joseph Manotoc, Ferdinand Richard Manotoc, his brother-in-law Gregorio Maria Araneta III, including Imee's step-son Ricardo Gabriel Manotoc. According to The Guardian, his late father, Ferdinand Marcos, had an accumulated stolen wealth of US $10 Billion during his presidency, while earning an annual salary equivalent to US $13,500.00. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/07/10bn-dollar-question-marcos-millions-nick-davies) 70.51.153.174 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not made the requested change since it is not clear that the sins of the father (and possibly other family members) should be visited on the son. There is a danger of implying guilt by association even though it is amply sourced that this is a notoriously corrupt and rapacious family in general. BushelCandle (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Public Behavior

Public Behavior section has been purged. Review rules on quotations at WP:QUOTEFARM. Do NOT resurrect. Consider moving to WikiQuote.--Arquenevis (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite the section instead of deleting it. There is information there very pertinent to the subject. Ask for consensus here on talk page before deleting it in the span of 2 days. As for the article needing to be "concise", the article isn't particularly long. Please see Wikipedia:Content removal#Reasons. Your reasons for deletion fall under none of those. -Object404 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

GDP Per Capita

I'm not attacking or defending any party in PI politics, but I question the accuracy of this quotation:

"From 1970 to 1980, among East Asian and Southeast Asian countries, the Philippines registered the lowest GDP per capita at 3.4% (An Analysis of Economic Crisis, ed. Dr. Emmanuel de Dios, 1984"

GDP is not measured in units of "people", therefore "GDP per capita" is not a dimensionless quantity and can't be stated as "N %". That is as meaningless as saying "I put 5 miles of gas in the tank and got 3% before I ran out."

Possibly some words (like maybe "annual growth in", for example) were left out. If the source cited actually wrote that, I wonder if they actually know what they are talking about. It could have been a careless slip of the pen, but it is hard to imagine an academic economist making such a bone-headed error in professional diction. If that really is an accurate quotation, at the very least it ought to have [sic] inserted at the appropriate spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"have [sic] inserted at the appropriate spot" -> Done! -Object404 (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bongbong Marcos. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bongbong Marcos. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bongbong Marcos. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

2001:4451:4BF:9D00:5118:A4F1:8290:95AE (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC) He is Born in San Juan
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

He did not co-authored 34 laws PresidentMarcos (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

He did not co-author 34 laws PresidentMarcos (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 14:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

He is the second child and only son of the Late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. 136.158.1.79 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021 (2)

AbzVlogz26 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Chlod (say hi!) 03:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

Ferdinand "Bongbong" Romualdez Marcos Jr.[2][3] (born September 13, 1957), also known by his initials BBM, is a Filipino politician who most recently served as a senator from 2010 to 2016. He is the second child and only son of former president, Ferdinand Marcos and former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos.[2] Satruthlangtayookay (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Pls remove dictator and kleptocrat as this is a deregatory words to describe an honorable president.

Quote only son of former president, dictator and kleptocrat Ferdinand Marcos and former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos.[2] unquote Satruthlangtayookay (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Satruthlangtayookay: Wikipedia is not censored, nor does it shy away from what most reliable sources call a person. Sources such as the South China Morning Post, [1] Al Jazeera,[2] CNN,[3] Reuters,[4] Inquirer.net,[5] and AP News[6] all refer to Ferdinand Marcos as a dictator, with the Inquirer,[7] Reuters,[8] Time,[9] and Manila Standard[10] all referring to him as a kleptocrat or calling his dictatorship a kleptocracy. If these are what reliable sources refer to Ferdinand Marcos, Wikipedia will refer to him the same as well. Chlod (say hi!) 18:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3151416/philippine-dictators-son-ferdinand-bongbong-marcos-jnr-runs
  2. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/5/son-of-late-philippines-dictator-marcos-to-run-for
  3. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/asia/philippines-bongbong-marcos-president-bid-intl-hnk/index.html
  4. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/son-late-philippines-strongman-marcos-run-presidency-media-2021-10-05/
  5. ^ https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1490968/marcos-martial-law-golden-age-for-corruption-abuses
  6. ^ https://apnews.com/article/leni-robredo-rodrigo-duterte-ferdinand-marcos-philippines-manila-9fd54023749b44c8c04b275248eec108
  7. ^ https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1499669/raising-the-barricades-up-student-councils-oppose-presidential-bid-of-late-dictators-son
  8. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/five-facts-about-philippines-ferdinand-marcos-jr-2021-10-06/
  9. ^ https://time.com/6106402/philippine-elections-duterte/
  10. ^ https://manilastandard.net/mobile/article/365408
We should probably say in the lead that Marcos Sr. was a president. "Dictator" and "kleptocrat" are, for the most part, labels and not actual offices, and blurs the fact that Marcos Sr. was president (not all dictators and kleptocrats were styled as "presidents".) (Emilio Aguinaldo was once dictator of the Philippines, as an actual office, prior to him becoming president.) Howard the Duck (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: I do remember "president" being part of that at some point; not sure who removed it. That being said, I support adding that in, so if you'd like to do that then that'd be great. Chlod (say hi!) 20:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I dunno how to phrase it without removing "dictator and kleptocrat". This seems to be an important sticking point for some people. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: I've restored the state of the sentence as of revision 1048270438 with Special:Diff/1052220036, which does happen to remove "kleptocrat". Hopefully this strikes a balance between both options. Chlod (say hi!) 01:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Full name incorrect

It should be Ferdinand Martin Romualdez Marcos Jr.

Enough with the misleading information. Esicat (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Esicat: Do you have any reliable sources for this claim? Chlod (say hi!) 16:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This "full name" only showed up with the Oxford University document released by Marcos himself that he was awarded a "special diploma". This guy has always presented the current name that we have on the article, without "Martin", The Senate website is down (LOL), but the Web Archive's 2020 archive of it omits "Martin". The very first archive in November 2016 still omitted "Martin," and interestingly, says he "earned his bachelor's degree in Political Science, Philosophy and Economics from the Oxford University in 1978."
Is the Oxford University document Marcos presented reliable enough for us to accept that his name indeed includes "Martin"? Reliable sources have pictures of the document verbatim. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, his official website's "About" page does not include "Martin." Howard the Duck (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
(Martin Ferdinand Romualdez is another person. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC))

In Marcos vs. Court of Appeals et. al, where Marcos was appealing his tax evasion conviction, he went with the "Ferdinand R. Marcos II" name. This guy's real name changes all the time. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Education

The inforrmation of Marcos' educition is false information it is not accurate. Marcos was not failed twice in Economics. Please fix it. 2001:8F8:1521:1081:4DE:47B:432B:7E76 (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

"Change Dictator to Great" 1.145.139.117 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chlod (say hi!) 00:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Restoring Chronological Order (instead of a "Polticial Activities after 19xx" section)

I feel rather strongly that the Chronological Order of time-related life events ought to be restored, with activities separated into "During the Marcos Administration", "During Exile in the United States", and "After 1991". Having a separate "Polticial Activities after 1986" makes no sense except to highlight those activities, which are not the point of a biographical article meant to cover the subject's life as a whole. The unfortunate side-effect is to obscure important life events and various issues (not necessarily chronological) for which the subject is known. Non-chronological thematic subject matter such as wealth, court cases, martial law denialism, online presence, and personal life can and should then then have their own section. This is the way it is done in other biographical articles, and I do not understand why the subject is somehow an exception. - Thundersub (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't get why "Political career after 1986" is made as the major breakpoint either, with everything as subheadings under it. Agree with other thematic subjects having their own sections. -Object404 (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with this suggestion as it would improve readability immensely. I remember this article having more subheadings that made it easier to read or scan. Am also missing some pertinent details that this article had previously, such as those on wealth and martial law denialism. Crisantom (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The previous "chronological" order was, frankly, disorganized; the unexplained wealth section is isolated from his role in the Marcos regime (not to mention that it's only a single paragraph that duplicates information from the previous sections) and the "activities after 1986" is separated from his other activities after 1986. To call it chronological is a misnomer because the events aren't listed chronologically. The consolidated section for his activities during the dictatorship is enough; IMO, separating it would be giving undue weight to his activities pre-EDSA. As for the other concerns, perhaps we can create a "Public image" section that would cover denialism, online presence, etc. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 08:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
But that's the point: none of the documented denialism is actually pre-EDSA. It is a separate, ongoing (present-day too, but arguably ongoing) issue of revising history. It cannot belong in the pre-EDSA period because it was not yet "history" to deny. The supposed "irrelevance" of this issue may be one's opinion but that opinion would run contrary to extensive media and scholarly discourse on the contemporary relevance of denialism. Also, ditto Crisantom's comment on the importance of headings. - Thundersub (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems you haven't read the latter part of my comment. As for the other concerns, perhaps we can create a "Public image" section that would cover denialism, online presence, etc. This would be similar to Donald Trump, where his fake news proliferation and social media are covered extensively. My point for the other sections still stand. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 08:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
My point is that it and wealth should be in sections of their own (whether first or second level), rather than part of the administration, given that they persist past the administration and continue to this day. And that they are thus by no means part of "Activities during the Marcos Administration." As long as they are separate sections and not portrayed as "part of the past," then that is good. The idea of placing these under a section towards the end is not objectionable in itself, IMO, but the problem is that "Public Image" downplays these as matters of opinion rather than matters of fact, which they are. (He denies the damage done by Martial Law - fact, relevant, and contemporary; and he continues to benefit from what the Supreme Court has ruled to be ill-gotten wealth - fact, relevant, and contemporary; he has played a part in numerous court cases, either as defendant or plaintiff - fact, relevant,and contemporary). A more neutral topic heading might resolve this, though. Much depends on whether or not we can agree on neutral phrasing. As for the difficulty of "after 1986," in the chronology, I still believe the solution is to use "in the US" No actual controversy there, just a separation into the three obvious phases in his narrative: "While his father was in power (before 1986)," "while his family was in exile,(1986-1991)" and "after he came back(1991-Present)". I feel that it's the emphasis on political positions that is undue, bordering on being resume-like. - Thundersub (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I acknowledge the fact that these are not part of the past, but these issues were shaped mostly by it; aside from the information from 2011, not much from the present can be added at all. As a stand-alone section, it would be too short and would lack context. Maybe we can rename the "Roles during the marcos regime" to a term that would be much more encompassing, given that all of the things in it are overarching. As for the proposal to make a public image section, I disagree that it would downplay denialism; as a second-level heading under this section, it would definitely be highlighted. To further highlight this, an addition that we can maybe add is a paragraph in the lede about this. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 05:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The thing it documents is the act of denial, which is present even if the thing being denied is in the past. A parallel: an incident of holocaust denial on a 21st century TV show does not chronologically belong in the 1940s because the event took place in the past. It belongs squarely in the 21st century.- Thundersub (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
If we must really separate 2011 from the rest of the activities during the regime, I propose this hierarchy:
  • Early life and education
  • Career during the Marcos regime section (new name TBD)
    • Unexplained wealth
    • Philcomsat
    • EDSA Revolution and exile
  • Career post-1986 (new name TBD) (similar to Imee's section)
    • Governor
    • Congress
    • Senate career
    • 2011 swiss section (either second or third level heading, depends)
    • VP bid
    • P bid
  • Public profile
    • Martial law denialism
    • Online presence
  • Personal life
The previous arrangement was not chronological. It was 1986 (exile), then 2011 (swiss account recovery), then back to 1989 (death of his father), then 1991 (return to Ilocos politics). This new compromise would consolidate his role in his father's dictatorship and his career post-exile, while being in chronological order. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 08:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just saw this message. I spotted that error just now and corrected it. I didn't realize it right away because I'm familiar with the event and automatically filled in the blanks in my head. The supposed 2011 item is an early 1986 event (sometime between late Feb and MidMarch, the sources don't give an exact date), which is listed as 2011 because the news article citing its acknowledgement is about a forum that took place in 2011. I suspect given it has been moved around so much, parts of the sentence have gotten deleted over time. I've relocated the incident accordingly, and provided a clarification and a second/corroborating source. The rest of the paragraph is a 1995 attempt at a compromise agreement with a PCGG. I've separated it and left it in its current place. I'll get back to you in a short while regarding the proposed new organization. - Thundersub (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are my own proposals for the article outline, with proposed changes in bold, and notes in itals.
  • Early life and education
  • During the Marcos regime (before 1986) (proposed new name)
(This part needs to have a section lead)
(Other early activities go here)
  • Vice Governorship (1980-1983) and Governorship (1983-1986) of Ilocos Norte
  • Philcomsat
  • EDSA Revolution and exile (1986 to 1991) (Raise one level and proposed new name) :::::::: (Credit Suisse incident goes here)
  • Return to the Philippines (1991 to present)
(This part needs to have a section lead)
  • Congress, first term (1992-1995)
  • Governor of Ilocos Norte (1998-2007)
  • 1995 Compromise Deal attempt (This is now separate from the Swiss accounts thing, which happened in 86, not 2011)
  • Congress, second term (2007-2010)
  • Senate term (2010-2016)
  • 2016 VP bid
    • Election results protest
  • 2022 P bid
  • Court Cases
    • 1995 Tax case conviction
    • 2011 Hawaii contempt judgement
  • Public profile (I still don't think this is necessary, but maybe that's an argument someone else can make)
    • Unexplained wealth (This is where we disagree, but I'm putting this where I would propose to put this)
    • Martial law denialism
    • Online presence
  • Personal life
These are from what I could make out of the current article, of course. I think further possible improvements will become evident as the article organization is improved. - Thundersub (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems we have consensus in the majority of the cases, with the exact location of the unexplained wealth section and perhaps the specifics of some headings being points we can resolve more definitively at a later time. Given that the "Political Career" section seems particularly confusing to me because it essentially highlights his list of political positions at the cost of downplaying other parts of his life, I'll proceed with reorganization in a few hours. I also encourage any other editors to please help double check for any references that may need to be changed from "live" to "archive" as was the case of the reference for the 1986 Swiss Accounts Freezing incident. Thanks. - Thundersub (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. :) Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 05:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I think we can remove the (dates) on the second level headings. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Associated conversation about due weight

You misinterpret and misunderstand the concept of undue weight, Itsquietuptown. Undue weight is giving undue emphasis to minority viewpoints, whereas some content you deleted are prominently covered by journalistic sources. -Object404 (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Topics that receive significant coverage by journalistic and scholarly sources may and should be covered in this article. A way forward would be to restore the deleted portions and then possibly organize the article under NPOV topic headings suggested by Thundersub. -Crisantom (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to active contributors and new editors, early February 2022

Just a community hello comment. I see the article has gotten a lot of attention in the last few days. Thanks in particular to Itsquietuptown, Object404, and Crisantom for discussing the content here in the talk page and helping forge agreements and (at least temporary) consensuses (consensi?). I also note, with a mix of amazement and concern, that the page has gotten the attention of some relatively new editors. Thank you also. This is a relatively controversial topic, and a BLP at that. Just a reminder to please be as familiar as you can with Wikipedia guidelines - especially, if you end up discussing here, on Wikipedia:Civility. Welcoming you all with open arms, and hoping for many fruitful collaborations in the future. Especially since the subject of this article is in the news a lot and I suspect we're not quite done here yet.- Thundersub (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2022

Citation 43 leads to a dead link on CNN philippines: http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/02/25/Ferdinand-Marcos-Malaca%C3%B1an-last-day.html Lustre Jr., Philip (February 25, 2016). "Ferdinand Marcos: His last day at the Palace". CNN Philippines.


As I've checked the page appears to be archived on Wayback Machine multiple times. The suggestion is to replace the dead link with the archived version. Below is the link of one of the snapshots. https://web.archive.org/web/20160318204515/http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/02/25/Ferdinand-Marcos-Malaca%C3%B1an-last-day.html

Thank you Enrique of malacca (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Added archived link. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 12:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

To be clear Ferdinand Marcos Sr. Is a President and not a Dictator. Thank you!Fixer.exe (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that he is not now either, reliable academic sources concur in the view that he was both. JBW (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022 (2)

Fixer.exe (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

He is the second child and only son of former president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos.

  • Indeed so, as stated in the article. JBW (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

fixing profile image of Bongbong Marcos

Bongbong_Marcos 

Davii dead (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Ferien (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This is almost certain to be not your own work. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Kleptocraf

Please remove the term 49.144.32.155 (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Prior discussions and a binding WP:RFC have consensus on using this term to refer to his father. This will continually be used unless a binding RFC has consensus not to. It will not be removed here or anywhere by mere simple requests such as this one, no matter how many is filed. I suggest getting consensus first on his father's article to get this removed first. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove rappler as a reference

Since rappler is one of the least trusted media outlet in the philippines and is obviously biased towards certain personalities. Referencing rappler seems very unreliable. Eyeofskadi (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Please state the basis for this assertion. - Crisantom (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Eyeofskadi:Why would we remove references from Rappler (or any media outlet) just for being 'biased and not trusted' without a clear consensus? References are being subject to reliable sources guideline as a basis of reliability. Xingqiu • Talk 12:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Rappler is considered a reliable source. Please see the entry for Rappler in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources Crisantom (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe rappler is a reliable source outside the Philippines, but if your subject is within Philippines I dont think rappler can be use as a reliable reference because rappler is a questionable source for being one of the least trusted in the Philippines. They have a history of publishing misinformation. Their CEO has been convicted of libel. Being questionable doesnt make them reliable. Eyeofskadi (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Again please site your basis for this assertion. The general consensus is that Rappler is considered a reliable source as referenced above by @Crisantom. Firekiino (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Kleptocrat

Please remove the term. Luffykudo (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Prior discussions on the use of the term have already been resolved in a binding Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The use of the term will stay until a new consensus about it says otherwise. If you wish to contest this you may proceed to the following link and voice your concern Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#RfC for the use of the term "kleptocrat" in Wikivoice on a political figure Firekiino (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"kleptocrat"

Really, wikipedia? Really? Is your left-wing bias really gonna be that bad? 62.226.94.239 (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Prior discussions on the use of the term have already been resolved in a binding Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The use of the term will stay until a new consensus about it says otherwise. If you wish to contest this you may proceed to the following link and voice your concern Talk:Ferdinand Marcos#RfC for the use of the term "kleptocrat" in Wikivoice on a political figure Firekiino (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post article

cc @Object404: Hi there. I added the Washington Post article about BBM to the lead, but maybe there's more info abt the revisionism / fake news from this article that I didn't see that can be added? I'm away from home rn and cant edit much on this crappy laptop. Can you please take a look at the article and see what could be added to the lead! Ty <3 rogueshanghaichat (they/them) 16:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Please be professional when referring to article subjects on Wikipedia. Thanks. -Object404 (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Object404: Sorry about that. So is there anything we can add from the WP article? Ty rogueshanghaichat (they/them) 05:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

False information

No sufficient evidence 2A01:4C8:1070:A333:AC8D:2069:1AAD:5361 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The article literally has 164 references? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022

2016 Commission on Audit suit update Alleged PDAF mastermind Janet Lim Napoles had long cleared Marcos of his involvement in the controversy in the judicial affidavit she submitted before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee at the height of the hearings. source: https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2016/0406_marcos2.asp#:~:text=Alleged%20PDAF%20mastermind%20Janet%20Lim%20Napoles%20had%20long%20cleared%20Marcos%20of%20his%20involvement%20in%20the%20controversy%20in%20the%20judicial%20affidavit%20she%20submitted%20before%20the%20Senate%20Blue%20Ribbon%20Committee%20at%20the%20height%20of%20the%20hearings. Adriannicolaii (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

BBM 111.125.122.107 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Amendment

Remove dictator & kleptocrat. Article is biased against the Marcos family. 136.158.34.113 (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The removal of these terms (at least for the Ferdinand Marcos article) were discussed in Talk:Ferdinand Marcos § Kleptocrat a Strong Word But Perception. and Talk:Ferdinand Marcos § RfC for the use of the term "kleptocrat" in Wikivoice on a political figure, with consensus by editors determining that those statements are factual and valid enough to be kept. I don't think there's much reason why the arguments raised there cannot be applied here as well. If you wish to contest the assertion that Ferdinand Marcos was a kleptocrat, please provide a reliable source that proves he is not. Chlod (say hi!) 13:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Biased editing

Whoever edited this during the campaign period for presidency until election day in May2022 is biased and undoubtedly a supporter of the opposing party. Based on the history of editing they added negative adjectives to describe the new president solely to misinform foreigners or the new generation. 

       They also remove rappler as their source of information which is also known to be biased. 
       Wikipedia should have been a credible source of information but some people who edit this use this platform to criticize and degrade people. 103.162.171.157 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello first of all we would be more than willing to discuss what terms you have seen are supposedly negative to retain the neutrality of this article. However as it stand you have not submitted any source or research supporting that the way the article is written is biased or unactual. If you could cite your information from reputable sources, the community would be more than willing to come to a consensus on your issue.
On to the issue of rappler, please submit data or sources showing that rappler is an unreliable source to this discussion thread Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. As it stands a majority of editors vouch for the reliability of their reporting and they will be considered a credible source of information until another consensus is reached.
thank you and have a nice day Firekiino (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

References to be added

Hello. Question: why are the references regarding his status as "president-elect" from international news outlet? NPR, Washington Post, and Al Jazeera. Is there a notion stating that international news agency should be included over the local ones like GMA, ABS-CBN, and etc.? I am not saying it is wrong to include the international ones but shouldn't the local ones be preferable since they are on the ground and directly reporting on this matter whence surely reliable? --Likhasik (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

President dictator

Remove this as not all majority pilipino didnt believe this, and even supreme court not title him like that, just use Former President of Philippines, dont promote hate 120.29.79.4 (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The term is not intended to promote hate. Reliable sources refer to Mr. Marcos as a dictator. If you have reliable sources that contend otherwise, feel free to share it here. Crisantom (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Ferdinand Marcos Sr. has long been regarded as dictator, both in the local and international academes. No primary source can be found against the title because charges against them are accurate, with various court decisions. Proffypaul (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Should this talk page be partially archived in light of wp:notaforum?

For the community: should this talk page be partially archived in light of wp:notaforum rules? It seems too many of the topics are just opinions which aren't backed up by reliable sources as defined in wp:reliable. This makes the actual, important discussions much mroe difficult to read. - Thundersub (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I would agree to this decision if ever implemented. Proffypaul (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed infobox change

Bongbong Marcos
Marcos in 2012
President-elect of the Philippines
Presumptive
Assumed office
June 30, 2022
Vice PresidentSara Duterte (presumptive)

I feel that the bunch of sources and the (presumptive) on the infobox looks weird. Maybe the sources cited on the infobox should move to the first sentence of the lead where it mentions Marcos being the president-elect OR add a note next to the presumptive text. Perhaps the infobox should be modified like this? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's try Sanaall4all (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I am lazy to fix it oh nonononono Sanaall4all (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Why no "President-elect" label in infobox?

I'm curious. Do we have to wait for Leni to concede in order for the label to be edited? In 2020 presidential election, "President-elect" was applied to Joe Biden minutes after news sources say the Joe Biden projected to win the presidency, and that was unofficial. Not to mention Donald Trump hadn't concede until 2 months later. Back to the Philippines, since the unofficial tally shows BBM to have won a landslide, therefore BBM should have "President-elect" in the infobox whether other candidates concede or not. 112.209.61.21 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

We have to wait for the proclamation of the Commission on Elections. --Bluemask (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it is the Congress of the Philippines that proclaims the president and vice president. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Will also note that the United States only needs to check ~583 votes (Electoral College votes) compared to the Philippines' ~67.5 million (or ~54 million, if you factor in the COMELEC's reported 80% turnout rate). The high counts can lead to equally high errors, which means the COMELEC needs to proclaim first before we reflect it here. Chlod (say hi!) 06:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The IP is entirely correct. We go only by what reliable sources say, and they have called the election for Marcos and Duterte. What you are suggesting is overriding secondary sources with primary ones, which is contrary to the core Wikipedia policy WP:V. The Associated Press, Washington Post, Al Jazeera, and more have proclaimed the winners. That is their editorial judgement based on the preliminary results. These are all highly reliable sources, as can be confirmed at WP:RSPSS. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Secondary sources in the Philippines do not call him president-elect yet. The terms used are "presumptive president" and "president in waiting". If we weigh secondary sources, surely local sources are paramount, yes? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's such a policy. If all these major international sources are calling him the winner, than I think it'd reasonable to conclude your sources mean the same thing. When the associated press says plainly he's won, that should be enough for us. ― Tartan357 Talk 11:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I could tell, none of the sources mentioned—AP, Washington Post, nor Al Jazeera—have reported that Mr. Marcos had been proclaimed by Congress. - Crisantom (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
They don't need to say that. We described Biden as president elect on Nov. 7 because reliable sources started calling him that then–despite nothing official coming out that day, the Electoral College not casting votes until December, and the president-elect not being declared by Congress until January. Reliable sources make these determinations for us. That's how Wikipedia works. ― Tartan357 Talk 12:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources in the Philippines are not calling Marcos as "president-elect." They are using other terms, but not exactly "president-elect." Howard the Duck (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
As long as it is clearly indicated that he won, I don't really mind which term is used. ― Tartan357 Talk 13:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck Ummm no. President-elect and Presumptive president are the terms used for appropriation for the most selected presidential candidate. Although the congress will officially proclaim the winner 2-4 weeks after the election day (to which the official term "president" will be used), the media and communication-space would use the terms aforementioned in the previous sentence. It is true that the US might have differing terminologies or system describing this, but the Philippines surely has its own system. This also works with the vice-president and senatorial "magic 12". --Likhasik (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bluemask The IP user is correct. We don't need to wait for a person to be called "president-elect". What you are referring to is the absolute term "president" which of course congress will decide in the coming weeks. Again, "president-elect" is different from "president". President-elect is for the winner of the partial counting, which does NOT need congress approval (obviously). The president will then be used after proclamation by congress. --Likhasik (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK, Bongbong is not the 17th president-elect. There have been 17 direct elections (and 2 indirect ones), but there are some elections where the incumbents won, so they can't be properly called as "president-elect". Howard the Duck (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Marcos becomes president on June 30. He is president-elect from the moment he is proclaimed by Congress until June 30. Duterte still is the president until that day. No issue with Marcos being described as the winner, just the term "president-elect" comes at a later time. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck
>He is president-elect from the moment he is proclaimed by Congress until June 30.
I think you got it wrong. He will be considered as president-elect until end of May or First of June even without Congress approval. After June 30, he will be considered with the definite address as president which will be proclaimed by the congress.
BTW the lead has already be changed and appropriated. I think it should suffice this discussion. Just reassuring and possibly correcting your idea. --Likhasik (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"President-elect (presumptive)" is a mouthful and most likely WP:OR. This article neatly explains the terminology, at least on how Filipinos understand it. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck What do you mean by mouthful? It is the term used. In the lead it is already included and it certainly is not OR. The article you've sent is okay but not the primary or main source. See The Transition - Official Gazette: ...the incoming president is formally called the president-elect. (ad verbatim) I sense you are pushing an agenda here plus your assumption here is highly doubtful. Are you a Filipino living in the Philippines? --Likhasik (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I saw a live CNN report today that captioned a video of Marcos as "Presumptive president-elect of the Philippines". So that would seem appropriate. It was a live broadcast so I can't provide a link, but I'd support using that title per the other sources provided here. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this CNN Philippines? If it isn't, this is just foreign media not knowing what term to use, while knowing they can't just use "president-elect" by itself. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
The Official Gazette piece begins with "The transition formally begins when the winner of the presidential election is proclaimed by Congress." It cannot get much clearer than that. A candidate doesn't become a "president-elect" until Congress says so.
And yes, a Filipino living in the Philippines, if that changes anything. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it is better presumptive for now as what the article has now, the some media here in ph call them presumptive. Sanaall4all (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Biased

Kleptocrat - unacceptable term to use for a previous President who was already rich and has proven leadership. Money used to build useful Hospitals, establishments etc., Roads and highway, bridges etc.

Editing educational background from hearsays. Documents and Degree Certificate has been out for reference, still discredits his course of study in Oxford. An exam list to acquire Special Diploma in Social Studies is out given by Oxford University for reference.

Nongraduate vs Undergraduate degree (especially in UK this term vary vs how it is used in the Philippines)

Degree Certificate from Oxford university is only given to those conferred Degree and completed course of study. Only students can get this information for privacy and security. No one has the right to discredit his Documents.

On a newsletter from Oxford University, The Aularian, Bongbong Marcos has been featured by an Oxford senior Fellow. Hirayapage (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! A cursory search of the term Kleptocrat would show that it is defined as a leader who makes himself or herself rich and powerful by stealing from the rest of the people:. For your convenience i have place the link to said definition here. So by definition, being already rich, or building infrastructure projects does not bar someone from being called a kleptocrat. However, if you would like to contest this definition, you can join in this talk page segment on Ferdinand Marcos' own talk page regarding the descriptor. Please do feel free to make your case and bring up any relevant and reliable sources as well so the community may be able to arrive at a new consensus given your concern.
Regarding the individual's educational attainment. Please do cite any relevant and reliable sources that show that Marcos did indeed graduate with a degree from Oxford. As for the moment a large amount of material and Oxford university themselves have stated that he did not graduate with a full degree and was only given a special diploma. So until credible sources can show that he did graduate with a full degree, it will remain as is.
Regarding The aularian, please do provide a link to said newsletter so the community may scrutinize its reliability.
Once again, as you are new to this i assume, please do remember to cite your sources as this is the norm in Wikipedia. Happy editing and welcome to wikipedia! Firekiino (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the sources you were citing with regards to his diploma and degree Certificate was from OPS, a society from Filipinos, who would not identify themselves if they are an alumni of Oxford University. I have an email from FOI oxford regarding PBBM education. We can confirm that a Ferdinand Marcos matriculated at the University of Oxford in 1975 to read for a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. According to our records, he did not complete his degree, but was awarded a Special Diploma in Social Studies in 1978.

Background information: The Special Diploma in Social Studies first appears in the University’s Examination Statutes in 1967 and was, therefore, first open for enrolment in that year. It last appeared in the 1998 Examination Statutes. The Special Diploma was open to undergraduates, graduates, and non-University members.

It is not possible to provide a definitive answer with respect to the status of the Special Diploma relative to other courses of study offered by the University at that time or now. The relevant Examination Statutes relating to the Special Diploma in Social Studies are attached here and these provide an outline of the entry requirements, the scope of subject matter covered, and the examination requirements for the course.

-He shifted his course to get Special Diploma in Social Studies which is no longer offered. But can not confirm what level of study this was, but as per the course/curriculum he completed this in Full Term, with mark classification of PASS. Which this grade classification is also no longer used in UK education grading. This PASS mark has the same level of 5-6 or a Regular Degree [ https://www.studying-in-uk.org/uk-grading-system/ ] That is the reason he was awarded and conferred an DegreeCertificate from OXFORD. [ https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/graduation/ceremonies ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirayapage (talk • contribs) 15:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC) --Hirayapage (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the sources you were citing with regards to his diploma and degree Certificate was from OPS, a society from Filipinos, who would not identify themselves if they are an alumni of Oxford University. I have an email from FOI oxford regarding PBBM education. We can confirm that a Ferdinand Marcos matriculated at the University of Oxford in 1975 to read for a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. According to our records, he did not complete his degree, but was awarded a Special Diploma in Social Studies in 1978.

Background information: The Special Diploma in Social Studies first appears in the University’s Examination Statutes in 1967 and was, therefore, first open for enrolment in that year. It last appeared in the 1998 Examination Statutes. The Special Diploma was open to undergraduates, graduates, and non-University members.

It is not possible to provide a definitive answer with respect to the status of the Special Diploma relative to other courses of study offered by the University at that time or now. The relevant Examination Statutes relating to the Special Diploma in Social Studies are attached here and these provide an outline of the entry requirements, the scope of subject matter covered, and the examination requirements for the course.

-He shifted his course to get Special Diploma in Social Studies which is no longer offered. But can not confirm what level of study this was, but as per the course/curriculum he completed this in Full Term, with mark classification of PASS. Which this grade classification is also no longer used in UK education grading. This PASS mark has the same level of 5-6 or a Regular Degree [ https://www.studying-in-uk.org/uk-grading-system/ ] That is the reason he was awarded and conferred an DegreeCertificate from OXFORD. [ https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/graduation/ceremonies ] --Hirayapage (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi i believe you commented twice? im not sure what thats about but anyways.
While I did not mention any specific sources. I quickly looked up what you were referring to which is the Oxford Philippine Society? I must mention tho that they are only mentioned in one source which is used twice in the article. Even then their statement is not the only one used as well as numerous other sources have backed up their claim as well. Regarding your alleged email, while we cannot verify or scrutinize its authenticity, you yourself are saying he essentially did not graduate? According to the currently used as well sources in the article, Oxford has confirmed that while he was indeed enrolled, he never graduated with a full degree? I believe that answers any questions regarding the status of a full degree vis a vis a Special Diploma.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Oxford Philippine Society also appears to be a registered alumni association with Oxford university? So I'm not entirely sure how you can say that they cannot identify themselves as alumni of said university. If you can provided reliable sources as to their authenticity as a association representing Filipino alumni then you are welcome to show them.
Regarding his shifting, please cite any reliable sources that show he indeed shifted for the purposes of receiving only the Special Diploma. As it stands and according to the sources at hand, he received a special diploma primarily because he failed several subjects which were needed to pass his course. You also mention how he completed his full term to achieve a PASS mark. Would you be able to cite this from a reliable source as well? Currently sources say that he passed his philosophy class. You also mention how the grade classification, I am assuming you are talking about the PASS mark, but then you link an article regarding how it is in use to show an equivalence? Correct me if I'm wrong but there also doesnt appear to be a mention of level 5-6 in your link to studying_in_uk.org . As far as I've read, grades are only up to the 3rd degree and anything lower is failing.
I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of an article regarding how oxford conducts its graduations are of use to your argument as well.
Once again please do remember to cite all your assertions, wikipedia is not the place to add information that is of dubious veracity or for information that cannot be verified by third parties or the simple google search. Firekiino (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, Wikipedia also doesn't accept Google searches as references, but the overall sentiment by Firekiino is correct. @Hirayapage: the article doesn't make any false claims about his education. It states that he did not receive a degree but instead a special diploma, which is what you were fighting for. Rather than going on a tangent about his diploma, is there any specific change that you want to make? Chlod (say hi!) 00:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Personal and Cocaine abuse

BBM can talk and understand Ilocano language. He may not be a fluent Ilocano speaker but he does converse in this dialect even though grew up in Manila and studied abroad.

Cocaine abuse is just a hear say from President Duterte who is playing tactics to other Presidentiables and voters. He creates a 'something to talk about' so once Bongbong Marcos announce his candidacy it will be worth remembering. He proved this speculation is wrong by submitting himself to drug testing which Leni Robredo didn't take.

This article about Philippine President elect is hard to read. It pains to see that he's been mocked, accused and discredited. This should be edited by someone who knows his information and not by someone who has an intention to make his name funny because he is a Marcos. Hirayapage (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there from the other talk section.
All articles should strive to ensure that all information is correct and factual. So I am glad that you also desire to improve this article's information. So first things first. If you would like to contest any of the statements used in the article do bring up reliable information from reliable sources to back your claim. While wikipedia may be edited by anyone, that doesn't mean its information can come from anyone so keep that in mind. You are welcome to discuss your assertions with the backing of reliable sources. Firekiino (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Hirayapage: The related section says "alleged" for a reason, and it also includes information about the drug test. I will note: Wikipedia works on reliable sources and has a guideline of sticking to a neutral point of view. Those guidelines are even more strict for biographies of living persons. If you believe that this page is biased, then provide proof from reliable sources to refute the claims in this article. Otherwise, you will only be wasting time. Chlod (say hi!) 00:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bongbong_Marcos/Archive_1&oldid=1098279047"