Talk:Ferdinand Marcos/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Marcos' accomplishments and other facts

The entire article I would argue, tells only one side of the history. Indeed, I have attempted to bring some balance in the article but my contributions was removed and the article was locked by users who are apparently not open to other views, even if they are supported by reputable sources. Instead of raising counterarguments to rebut the points I made, my entire contribution was deleted and I was namecalled. Initially, some of the sources I cited aren't the most reliable, which was used as a justification to remove my entire contribution. However, after removing the portions attributable unreliable sources, you'll see that the sources I cited are by far the most reputable local and international media sources, like Business Mirror, Manila Standard, Philippine Star, Rapper, NBC News and New York Times. Moreover, by starting my contribution with "Marcos' supporters argue", I was even implying that what I contributed on the section could not be the view of the general population. This is also aligned with with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View WP:DUE specifically section 2.3 Due and Undue Weight.

Anyway, I'm proposing that the following be added to the article just so it won't present a too one-sided view of the history.

I. Introduction

A.

Marcos' supporters argue that his government built an unprecedented number of infrastructure projects, including hospitals like the Philippine Heart Center, Lung Center, and Kidney Center, transportation infrastructure like San Juanico Bridge, Pan-Philippine Highway, and Manila Light Rail Transit (LRT), and dozens of hydroelectric and geothermal power plants to lessen the country's dependency on oil. By 1983, the Philippines became the second largest producer of geothermal power in the world with the commissioning of the Tongonan 1 and Palinpinon 1 geothermal plants. On the education front, Marcos built 47 public colleges universities, outperforming all the presidents after him. To help transform the country's agricultural-based economy to a Newly industrialized country, he spearheaded the development of 11 heavy industrialization projects including steel, petrochemical, cement, pulp and paper mill, and copper smelter. Cultural and heritage sites like the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Nayong Pilipino, and Philippine International Convention Center were built. Likewise, in no other Philippine president's term has the country crafted more laws than during Marcos' term. From 1972-1986, Marcos codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees, almost all of which are remain in force today and are embedded in the country's legal system.

My initial comments here are 1) We must do away with WP:PEACOCK terms like unprecedented, outperforming, in no other president's term. 2) When you say dozens of hydroelectric.. How many exactly? 3) We can forget about "outperformance" in terms of the number of schools built or laws created, and say having been the longest serving president, Marcos accomplished all of those, or just totally forget all about it. 4) the newly industrialized economy is nowhere to be found in your sources. First paragraph is too subjective, it won't pass. Im sorry.--RioHondo (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo Thank you very much for your feedback. Let me address your concern one by one. The paragraph has also been revised below to reflect our discussion. Additional feedback is welcome.

1) We must do away with WP:PEACOCK terms like unprecedented, outperforming, in no other president's term.

Removed the following terms as suggested: unprecedented, outperforming, in no other

2) When you say dozens of hydroelectric.. How many exactly?

The source mentions 17 hydroelectric and geothermal plants. The article has been revised.

3) We can forget about "outperformance" in terms of the number of schools built or laws created, and say having been the longest serving president, Marcos accomplished all of those, or just totally forget all about it.

It must be noted that the paragraph started with "Marcos' supporters argue...". Although I agree that it'd be better if we present an analysis on a year-to-year basis.

In terms of laws passed:

The 2036 PDs passed averages 145 / year during the 1972-1986 period. It's a ton by today's standards. To put this into context, only 14 laws were passed in 2015, 12 laws in 2014, 11 laws in 2012, and 4 laws in 2012. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/12/27/1536601/lawmakers-pass-14-laws-year. Also it's noteworthy that of 2036 PDs passed, only 67 has been repealed or modified.

In terms of infrastructure:

Speaking of a year-on-year infrastructure performance, Dr. Sicat has this in his study as mentioned by Business Mirror:

“A study of infrastructure construction by various presidents shows that Marcos was the president who made the largest infrastructure investment. This is not because he was the longest-serving leader of the country alone.

“On a per-year basis, he led all the presidents. Only Fidel Ramos had bested him in road building for a period of one year. But overall in terms of quantity of infrastructure investments, their impact on the rest of the economy and on the breadth and depth of the investments, Marcos was by far the most prolific, undertaken on a per-year basis and cumulatively over the years that he held office.

This is the study that Business Mirror is referring to which can actually be used as a source for this paragraph: http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/dp/index.php/dp/article/viewFile/679/144. I have also added the above quotation in the paragrapth except for the last sentence

On Education:

I only cited the article and again, the paragraph started with "Marcos Supporters" argue. An analysis similar to above needs to be done if you prefer to see a per-year analysis to support the argument. But we can simply cite the author in the Wikipedia article or reiterating that Marcos Supporter's argue is enough. However, it's not really hard to analyze the number of public universities and colleges established during the Cory, Ramos, Erap, Noynoy era, which is 24 years in total. One can simply looked at the laws passed to check if the number of public universities and colleges established.

4) The newly industrialized economy is nowhere to be found in your sources.

Newly Industrialized Country was mentioned here http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/marcoss-unmatched-legacy/. Added a new source http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1985/eirv12n33-19850823/eirv12n33-19850823_014-the_philippines_battle_for_devel.pdf to be sure.--Thetruth16 (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have issue with the whole premise that Marcos and Marcos alone accomplished all of those. To satisfy WP:NPOV, the paragraph should be made to appear neutral and balanced considering a presidential administration is not the work of just one man. You have govt ministers assigned to handle education and legislators also create and pass laws not just the president. During or under the Marcos administration, [this number of schools were built or Congress was able to pass this many laws]--should be a more acceptable way of presenting it. Also, it would be more academic and more credible to actually provide the name of the Marcos supporter who made those claims than just say "according to Marcos supporters" without establishing their notability and acceptability. Much better if you can provide a more credible source, say a historian or member of the academe, than just an opinion column from a random newspaper columnist. Per WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This means you have to establish the prominence of your sources first like you did with Gerardo Sicat. If you ask me, an unnamed newspaper columnist's opinion (on BusinessMirror) is hardly prominent.--RioHondo (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@riohondo Thank you for the additional feedback. The paragraph was revised so it now refers to Marcos administration instead of Marcos to give credit to the other government members. Other points are also taken and the paragraph has been revised accordingly. Let me know if you have any further feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruth16 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@riohondo We can remove "Marcos argue" if that's what you prefer. The list of infrastructure, laws, schools are facts and and you'll get the same facts even if you look at other sources. You can check the Wikipedia infrastructure themselves like Philippine Heart Center or other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruth16 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A.

(1st Revision; for 2nd revision, please see the next section)

Marcos' supporters argue that his government built a large number of infrastructure projects, including hospitals like the Philippine Heart Center, Lung Center, and Kidney Center, transportation infrastructure like San Juanico Bridge, Pan-Philippine Highway, and Manila Light Rail Transit (LRT), and 17 hydroelectric and geothermal power plants to lessen the country's dependency on oil. By 1983, the Philippines became the second largest producer of geothermal power in the world with the commissioning of the Tongonan 1 and Palinpinon 1 geothermal plants. According to UP Economics Professor Dr. Sicat, "a study of infrastructure construction by various presidents shows that Marcos was the president who made the largest infrastructure investment. This is not because he was the longest-serving leader of the country alone. On a per-year basis, he led all the presidents. Only Fidel Ramos had bested him in road building for a period of one year". On the education front, Marcos built 47 public colleges universities, more than all the presidents after him. To help transform the country's agricultural-based economy to a Newly industrialized country, he spearheaded the development of 11 heavy industrialization projects including steel, petrochemical, cement, pulp and paper mill, and copper smelter. Cultural and heritage sites like the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Nayong Pilipino, and Philippine International Convention Center were built. Likewise, the country crafted a large number of during Marcos' during Marcos' term From 1972-1986, Marcos codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees,, an average of 145 during the 14 year period. To put this into context, only 14 laws were passed in 2015, 12 laws in 2014, 11 laws in 2012, and 4 laws in 2012. Almost all of the laws passed during the term of Marcos are remain in force today and are embedded in the country's legal system.

A.

(Revised to reflect discussions above - 2nd revision)

Marcos' government built a large number of infrastructure projects, including hospitals like the Philippine Heart Center, Lung Center, and Kidney Center, transportation infrastructure like San Juanico Bridge, Pan-Philippine Highway, and Manila Light Rail Transit (LRT), and 17 hydroelectric and geothermal power plants to lessen the country's dependency on oil. By 1983, the Philippines became the second largest producer of geothermal power in the world with the commissioning of the Tongonan 1 and Palinpinon 1 geothermal plants. According to UP Economics Professor Dr. Sicat, "a study of infrastructure construction by various presidents shows that Marcos was the president who made the largest infrastructure investment. This is not because he was the longest-serving leader of the country alone. On a per-year basis, he led all the presidents. Only Fidel Ramos had bested him in road building for a period of one year". On the education front, 47 state colleges and universities were built during the Marcos administration, which represents over 40% of all the existing 112 state colleges and universities in the country. To help transform the country's agricultural-based economy to a Newly industrialized country, he spearheaded the development of 11 heavy industrialization projects including steel, petrochemical, cement, pulp and paper mill, and copper smelter. Cultural and heritage sites like the Cultural Center of the Philippines, Nayong Pilipino, and Philippine International Convention Center were built. Likewise, the country crafted a large number of during Marcos' during Marcos' term. From 1972-1986, the Marcos Administration codified laws through 2,036 Presidential Decrees,, an average of 145 per year during the 14 year period. To put this into context, only 14, 12, and 11 laws were passed in 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Almost all of the laws passed during the term of Marcos are remain in force today and are embedded in the country's legal system.

B.

Marcos, together with agriculture minister and Harvard-educated Arturo Tanco and later on Salvador Escudero Jr., was instrumental in the Green Revolution in the Philippines and initiated an agricultural program called Masagana 99, improving agricultural productivity and enabling the country to achieve rice sufficiency in the late 1970's.

C.

Despite the unexplained wealth and corruption allegations, both U.S. and Philippine courts have cleared Marcos of corruption charges.

False. Please do not include the above in the main article.

• Inquirer: Marcoses lose US appeal - CONTEMPT CASE INVOLVES $354-M AWARD TO HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS
• GMA News: Singapore court awards $23M in Marcos money to PNB
• Good read: The Guardian: The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions? In the 21 years Ferdinand Marcos ran the Philippines, billions went missing. As his son stands for vice-president, will the stolen fortune ever be recovered?

-Object404 (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

C.

(revised and expounded previous version following discussions below)

The Philippine Supreme Court considers all Marcos assets beyond their legally declared earnings/salary to be ill-gotten wealth and such wealth have been forefeited in favor of the government or human rights victims. However, except for a former Marcos aide who conspired to sell a Monet and other artworks sequestered by the Philippine government, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted for plundering the Philippine treasury, receiving bribes, or corruption. In 1990, Imelda Marcos, the widow of the former Philippine President, was acquitted of charges by a U.S. Jury that she raided the country's treasury and invested the money in the United States.In 1993, she was convicted of graft in Manila for entering into three unfavorable lease contracts between a Government-run transportation agency and another government-run hospital. In 1998, the Philippine Supreme Court overturned the previous conviction of Imelda Marcos and acquitted her of corruption charges. As of October 2015, she still faces 10 criminal charges of graft,down from 900 cases in the 90's, as most of the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence.

@Object404

No, not necessarily.

We are actually presented with conflicting facts. On the one hand, Marcos has indeed proven to have unexplained wealth in Swiss banks and courts have awarded Marcos' unexplained wealth to human rights victims, but on the other hand, Marcos has never been found guilty and there were virtually no direct evidence or testimonies from former ministers and Central bank governors (Jaime Laya, Jose B Fernadez, Cesar Virata, Enrile) that Marcos plundered money from the Philippine treasury, Central Bank, or received kickbacks from projects, even after he fled the country.

Possible explanations (and feel free to add)

If you believe that Marcos is guilty of plunder

- Marcos is very good in hiding corruption and all the crooks who surrounded him pocketed money and got rich, and hence never testified. All his former ministers like ex Prime Minister Cesar Virata (who is respected in the business circles and is currently Vice Chairman in RCBC) and ex CB governor Jaime Laya (founder of the 2nd biggest accounting company in the Philippines and Chairman of a bank) were so prolific and in defending themselves against corruption charges such that none were found guilty or jailed during the Cory administration. All of them must have bribed the judges and prosecutors during the term of Cory.

If you are in the minority camp who believe that Marcos is not guilty of plunder

- Marcos obtained massive gold wealth from World War II treasures, as per former Ayala CEO Enrique Zobel's sworn statement and Caritas Manila Director Marcelino Tagle's words. Gold appreciated tremendously from the 1970's (like 2000%) and Marcos has been a very intelligent investor. He reinvested his money by using cronies to buy Philippine companies like PLDT further grow his wealth while keeping his privacy. Thetruth16 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

False. US and Philippine courts HAVE NOT cleared the Marcoses of all corruption charges. According to the Philippine Supreme Court, all Marcos assets beyond their legal earnings/salary are considered to be ill-gotten wealth, even the so-called Yamashita Treasure if indeed, Marcos had found the bulk of it. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/189434.htm -Object404 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment, Again let me say, it shouldn't be about what we (you, me, him) believe but the argument should be between sources. I already said this "Marcos supporters argue..." kind of presentation is unacceptable because we should only rely on what reliable sources say, all the time. Name the source of claims, and the source of counter claims, is how this is all supposed to be presented. Who exactly made the corruption allegations? And which specific US and Philippine courts cleared him of those charges? Only way this could be admitted is if the proposal presents both sides, with the more widely recognized version of the story being presented first, and your well-sourced dissent or counterclaim following it. Im not seeing anything in your proposal but pro-Marcos claims which are poorly sourced and with questionable prominence or notability due to lack of specifics and actual names of persons of authority making those claims.---RioHondo (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@riohondo

- And which specific US and Philippine courts cleared him of those charges?

US Acquittal: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/03/nyregion/marcos-verdict-marcos-cleared-all-charges-racketeering-fraud-case.html?pagewanted=all

This is the exact quote if you open the New York times link above "Imelda Marcos, the widow of the former Philippine President, was acquitted yesterday of charges that she raided the country's treasury and invested the money in the United States." "In the end, the jury remained unconvinced by thousands of pages of documents that had been entered into evidence."

Philippine Acquittal (1): http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23555294/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/t/marcos-cleared-million-corruption-case/#.V90qJJh96Uk

"Imelda Marcos was exonerated after a 17-year trial in the case involving millions of dollars stashed in Swiss bank accounts.Judge Silvino Pampilo Jr. of the Manila Regional Trial Court said the prosecution presented witnesses who were not directly relevant to the accounts and failed to prove wrongdoing by Marcos beyond a reasonable doubt."

Philippine Acquittal (2): Another one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/187295.stm

"The Supreme Court in the Philippines has overturned the conviction of Imelda Marcos on corruption charges, for which she had earlier been sentenced to at least nine years in jail."

Now tell me, are these questionable sources?

@Object404

Excess wealth above legal earnings have been presumed to be ill-gotten, but there's never been any guilty verdict (or at least, one guilty verdict was overturned by the Supreme Court) on specific corruption charges. Similarly, somebody could have betted 1 million in an a casino in Macau or Vegas and grew his money to 1 billion. While this is beyond legally declared earnings, in no way is this considered stolen or plundered money, and in no way will you get convicted with this for corruption or plunder.

To quote WSJ in an article dated March 7, 2013 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323494504578343254294114668)

"To date, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted of any crime."

Anyway, I've revised the paragraph above to take into account your comments and to add more details from the sources I cited.

Thetruth16 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that Marcos "won" his wealth in a casino? The Yamashita treasure was stolen from the people of Asia. It is still stolen and plundered wealth. -Object404 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Object404 My point is, you could earn money beyond legally declared earnings, and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's stolen. You could easily substitute "casino" with "investing in stocks" or "commodity trading" where you could also earn a ton of money, and it doesn't have to be "legally declared". Certainly for public officials especially, having money in excess of your legally declared earning is suspect, but it's not conclusive and it's not enough to convict an individual in court for corruption or plunder. Therefore, you just can't state in Wikipedia that Marcos is a plunderer as if it's a fact. Anyway, please let me know if you have additional feedback on the revised paragraph. Thetruth16 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Explain the source of Marcos's wealth then. If you say "The Yamashita Treasure", that's still ill-gotten wealth, and definitely plunder. http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/nov2003/152154.htm Also, excuse me? "...to date, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted of any crime" -> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24984558 -> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/nyregion/aide-to-imelda-marcos-is-sentenced-in-sale-of-masterpieces.html?_r=0 -Object404 (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, please read Asian Journal: Chronology of the Marcos Plunder -Object404 (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Object404 1. The Supreme Court link you gave above did not convict Marcos or his associates and "Plunder" can nowhere be found. 2. If indeed Marcos' wealth comes from Yamashita treasure, or if anyone becomes wealthy for finding a huge treasure, I'm not so sure if you can label that person as a plunderer or the person can be convicted of plunder by a court. 3. Asian Journal: Yes I've read this. It shows the Marcos' spending crazily shopping luxury goods in the U.S. This raises an issue of corruption, but it does not convict them. 4. "to date, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted of any crime" is a quote from the article in the Wall Street Journal cited as source. Indeed, the claim is a stretch since "any crime" is too broad. The conviction on Imelda Marcos' aide is she sold the artworks that's not hers by manipulating the papers and she pocketed the money. We can revise the sentence above just so it won't be too broad: "to date, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been directly convicted of plundering the Philippine treasury, receiving bribes, or corruption." Also, numerous references in the current article says that Marcos pocketed $10 billion from the $30b loans without credible basis (e.g., testimony from finance ministry / Bureau of Treasury or papertrail, court conviction) and has to be revised. See revised paragraph above. Thetruth16 (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You just made the sentence more unwieldy and still not true given the conviction. That WSJ article is from 2013 and has been superceded by the 2014 conviction of her aide. The Yamashita treasure is stolen wealth and can't be just claimed and used as you think. It is plundered wealth. -Object404 (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Was the former aide convicted of plunder or graft? Besides, the ownership of the artworks is still in question - she could either be stealing from Marcos or from the government, depending on who the real owner of the artwork is. But then for the sake of balance and completeness, we should mention that as a fact in the paragraph. What's mentioned by the WSJ just needs to be modified to recognize the exception you mentioned. So the sentence shall be revised as, "However, except for a former Marcos aide who conspired to sell artworks being confiscated by the Philippine government, no one accused of taking what the Philippine government calls "ill-gotten" assets has been convicted for plundering the Philippine treasury, receiving bribes, or corruption."

marcos loyalists and apologists seem to be obfuscating the facts. there will never be a court case that will be decided in favor of the filipino people and the reason is that most of the crooks are still in power. they were never removed by cory aquino's revolutionary government and many are so entrenched and wealthy that they simply bribed and bought their way out. the only truth is through the personal stories of the people who lived during that time inside the philippines, inside martial law. hitler and stalin and mussolini and mao and pol pot were never convicted in any court. if that is the standard of proof needed then they will all be saints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

D.

Enrique Zobel, founder of Makati Business Club and former chairman and president of Ayala Corporation, in his sworn statement, estimated Marcos gold hoard valued at US$100 billion and that Marcos wealth and that the riches were part of the Yamashita's treasure. Moreover, Marcelino Tagle, ex-director of Caritas Manila, corroborated Zobel and said that Marcos' gold were not stolen from the Philippine government, but came from Yamashita gold hoard and Vatican gold captured by Hitler.

during his last days. mr zobel became paralyzed due to a polo accident. he was paralyzed from the neck down. this was the time he started spouting this nonsense. there is no yamashita treasure and if there was it was not in those amounts. yamashita captured the philippines and singapore both poor countries during that time. where did the gold come from?this is stupidity. the gold he talks about would make marcos one of the largest gold owners in the world during that time. if you want more proof look at imelda when he went to the party of the shah of iran. she did not have fabulous jewelry during that time. this was before martial law (1971)when they still didn't have fabulous wealth. I think this was the reason for imelda's obsession with jewelry. she was the lowest attendee being only a first lady without any government post and beside her were the royal families of europe, japan and thailand with hundreds of years in history.they had fabulous jewelry. if marcos found a gold hoard purportedly worth 100billion in the 90s in 1945 this would still be worth a fabulous fortune. then imelda would not look so shabby attending that party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

E.

In his dying days, Marcos was visited by Vice President Salvador Laurel. During the meeting with Salvador Laurel, Marcos offered 90% of his stolen wealth to the Filipino people, an offer also disclosed to Enrique Zobel. However, Marcos' offer was rebuffed by the Aquino government.

II. On Martial Law:

A.

At the height of armed communist insurgency in the Philippines, Philippine Military Academy instructor Lt Victor Corpuz led New People's Army rebels in a raid on the PMA armory, capturing rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, a bazooka and thousands of rounds of ammunition in 1970. In 1972, China, which was then actively supporting and arming communist insurgencies in Asia, transported 1,200 M-14 and AK-47 rifles for the NPA to speed up NPA's campaign to defeat the government.

Based on interviews of The Washington Post with former Communist Party of the Philippines Officials, it was revealed that "the (Communist) party leadership planned -- and three operatives carried out -- the (Plaza Miranda) attack in an attempt to provoke government repression and push the country to the brink of revolution... (Communist Party Leader) Sison had calculated that Marcos could be provoked into cracking down on his opponents, thereby driving thousands of political activists into the underground, the former party officials said. Recruits were urgently needed, they said, to make use of a large influx of weapons and financial aid that China had already agreed to provide."

Martial Law was put on vote in July 1973 in the Philippine Martial Law referendum, 1973 and was marred with controversy with the following results:

Ratification	%
YES	90.77
NO	9.23

During that time all opposition politicians were in prison. all newspapers, radios, tv stations were in the hands of marcos. during the election, police forces were stationed in the polling precints. it was manual voting on pieces of paper. it was received by government employees who saw your vote and who worked for the marcos government.what do you think the result would be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

B.

University of the Philippines economics professor and former NEDA Director-General Dr. Gerardo Sicat, an MIT Ph.D. graduate, portrayed some of Martial Law's effects as follows:

“Economic reforms suddenly became possible under martial law. The powerful opponents of reform were silenced and the organized opposition was also quilted. In the past, it took enormous wrangling and preliminary stage-managing of political forces before a piece of economic reform legislation could even pass through Congress. Now it was possible to have the needed changes undertaken through presidential decree. Marcos wanted to deliver major changes in an economic policy that the government had tried to propose earlier.” The enormous shift in the mood of the nation showed from within the government after martial law was imposed. The testimonies of officials of private chambers of commerce and of private businessmen dictated enormous support for what was happening. At least, the objectives of the development were now being achieved…”.

C.

More than 2,000 laws in form of Presidential Decrees were passed during the term of Marcos, many of which are still recognized up to present.

The constitution changed in 1987. Many of Marcos's significant laws became obsolete then so you cannot say "almost all are still recognized up to the present". -Object404 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Object404 On what basis did you say that they are obsolete? Because the laws are old? Actually, Only 67 Presidential Decrees or less than .01 percent have either been repealed or modified.<http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/marcoss-unmatched-legacy/> The constitution is a different story - the paragraph above talks about Presidential Decrees and it doesn't claim that the 1973 constitution is recognized up to present.

Among the major Presidential Decrees still recognized and enforced are:

The 13th Month Pay Law [PD 851]

Labor Code of the Philippines [PD 442]

Real Property Tax Code [PD 464]

National Building Code [PD 1096];

Philippines Environment Code [PD 1152];

Fire Code [PD 1185];

Government Auditing Code [PD 1445];

Tariff and Customs Code [PD 1464]

Among the critical Marcos-era laws governing real estate and commercial transactions are as follows:

a. Condominium Act of 1966 . Buying a condo? This law protects you from getting duped and from the developer from taking back the condominium after 20 or 30 years. In case the condo needs to be knocked down, you are a part owner of the land based on this law.

b. Corporation Code of the Philippines. Philippine companies are still governed by the Marcos-era Corporation Code

c. Bouncing Check Law. http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1979/bp_22_1979.html which is still used by people, banks and companies to demand payment (under the threat that they can sue the borrower for Estafa).

We should definitely expound this paragraph just to clear misconceptions that laws crafted during the Marcos administration are obsolete.

Thetruth16 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

D.

In January 1973, the constitution was approved by 95% of the voters in the Philippine constitutional plebiscite.

III. On Snap Elections

A.

The alleged fraud culminated in the walkout of 35 COMELEC computer technicians to protest the manipulation of the official election results to favor Ferdinand Marcos. However, not known to many, the walkout of computer technicians was led by Linda Kapunan, wife of Lt Col Eduardo Kapunan, a leader of Reform the Armed Forces Movement, which plotted to attack the Malacañang Palace and kill Marcos and his family, leading some to believe that the walkout could have been plotted with ulterior motives.

IV. On His Death

during that time doing this would be a death sentence. you would be removed from your job and probably arrested by the military police. these people would not have done this had they not been ready to die to try to bring back democracy to the philippines by electing cory aquino.if you allow this edit then please tell the story of how marcos tried to cheat the election by manipulating the computer results also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.90.222 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

A.

Prior to his death, he expressed his desire to be buried in the Philippines and to turnover 90% of his stolen assets to the Filipino People. When he was visited by Vice President Salvador Laurel in Hawaii several months before, he said:

Please tell Mrs. Aquino to stop sending me her relatives. They are proposing and asking so many things. All I want is to die in my country…I will run over 90 percent of all my worldly possessions to our conversation to our people. I ask only 10 percent for my family

Mrs. Aquino refused to meet Salvador Laurel to receive Marcos' message.

laurel was the vice president of cory involved in a coup d etat against her. of course she won't see him. he isn't credible. he even stole funds of paskuhan village in clark during the time of president ramos. he's the ultimate predatory politician.

B.

The Aquino government refused to allow Marcos' body to be brought back to the Philippines. The body was only brought back to the Philippines only after 4 years after Marcos' death during the term of President Fidel Ramos . Thetruth16 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Debt growth in the first section

@RioHondo:

@Object404:

Before

He was elected President in 1965. During his term, the Philippine national debt grew from $2 billion to almost $30 billion—while used to fund development projects, of which the Marcos family had plundered $5-10 billion USD, according to source documents provided by the Presidential Commission on Good Government.

Thetruth16 (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed revision

He was elected President in 1965. During his term, the Philippine national debt grew from $2 billion to $28 billion. In the meantime, based on World Bank data, Philippine Annual Gross Domestic Product grew from $5.27 billion in 1964 to $37.14 billion in 1982, a year prior to the assassination of Ninoy Aquino which triggered an economic recession. By the end of 1985, GDP stood at $30.7 following two years of economic contraction.

Discussion

1. Debt is raised to fund development projects. To shorten the paragraph, we may not need to state the obvious. 2. It's misleading to say or imply that Marcos pocketed foreign debt. While is accused of taking away money, let's not mix this on the debt section. The PCGG didn't say that Marcos took money from the foreign debt. Other paragraphs in this section have already mentioned about he corruption issue. 3. Debt has to be put into context with GDP. I added data from the World Bank. 4. Amount of debt is $28 billion to be more exact in 1986. Let's use this rather than "almost $30 billion". Check http://pcij.org/stories/glorias-inglorious-record-biggest-debtor-least-popular/

Other comments and suggestions

Your BusinessMirror citation links do not exist. You also cannot cite WikiPilipinas because like Wikipedia, it is another Wiki editable by anyone. -Object404 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Object404:

@Object404:

Hello. Thank you for your feedback. I have updated the Business Mirror links. They are working now. Strangely, Google Chrome may warn you that some BusinessMirror pages are affected with Malware. To proceed on Chrome when you see the error, click details, and click the "unsafe site." HTML files do no harm anyway. Alternatively, the Business Mirror links can be viewed using Internet Explorer and Edge without any issues. I also swamped Dr Sicat's Wikipilipinas link with a page from UP Diliman. http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/gerardo-p-sicat-the-economist-with-a-vision/ Thetruth16 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Will try to go over and review each one of your proposed changes above. I hope other editors do the same. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@RioHondo:

@Object404:

Thank you both for your feedback. Following our discussion and revisions, I have moved Section I to the main article page. I'd be happy to discuss if there's any feedback or concerns on Section I.

Let me know if you have other feedback on the succeeding sections before they are brought to the main article.Thetruth16 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does this wiki look like an advertisement for Marcos?

This wiki seriously needs a clean up. Parts of it urgently need neutrality.

Not sure what all these quotes are placed for as they do not seem to hold much relevance. Much of the material (all over the place so I cannot pinpoint only a few sections) look like they might as well have been written by Imelda Marcos herself!

Notthebestusername (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. The article seriously needs a lot of work. -Object404 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Recent events have drawn attention from some other editors; this may be a good thing. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Can "Lead too long" tag now be removed from the article?

The article lead is now of a more manageable size and is much shorter than say, former President Ronald Reagan's article lead, and is now comparable in length to those of other presidents, like John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush. Can we now remove the "lead too long" tag? -Object404 (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Human rights abuses section; initial sentence

This edit caught my eye. The edit inserted the word innocent into the initial sentence of the Human rights abuses section of the article, with an edit summary saying, "Innocent - a large amounts of victims were innocent". Specifically, the edit changed "as well as members of the media" to read, "as well as innocent members of the media" in one part of the sentence. That sentence is now over 70 words long, and reads as follows:

Targets of human rights violations by the Philippine military included members of the Communist Party of the Philippines, its armed wing the New People's Army (NPA) or members of the Muslim underground organization Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF),^[220][221] who launched an armed rebellion against the Philippine government, as well as well as innocent members of the media,^[222] farmers,^[223] student protesters^[224] political opponents^[225] who were accused of being members, supporters or sympathizers of these organizations.

As I understand it, the sentence is trying to say that the Philippine military targeted a number of named groups and classes of persons and committed human rights violations against them, and that the armed wings of two of these groups, the NPA and the MILF, launched (or perhaps had launched?) armed rebellions against the government, and that some of those groups or classes of persons were "innocent", in that they were suffering consequences for events for which they were not responsible or in which they were not directly involved. I'm presuming that the innocence in that sense of those groups or classes of persons was a fact, though the cited sources probably do not support their characterization here as "innocent". I am not sure that my understanding is correct.

I suggest that the sentence be rewritten and simplified by someone who has a better understanding than I of what it is intended to convey. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to add: I feel that the use of the word "innocent" is too vague, not to mention emotionally loaded. I have no doubt that the innocents being referred to are indeed "innocent", but it would be helpful if the text would be more specific. What exactly are they "innocent" of? In addition, the use of the word "innocent" implies that certain acts like protest and free expression are something to be guilty of. I'll second Wtmitchell's suggestion here: that "the sentence be rewritten and simplified by someone who has a better understanding than [us] of what it is intended to convey." - Alternativity (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The history of that sentence is that it got mangled between a tug of war between User:Thetruth16 and me. The fact of the matter is that many innocent civilians were picked up, arbitrarily detained, tortured and/or killed by the military during that time period on trumped-up charges for mere suspicion, for having long hair (as males), for being belonging to the University of the Philippines (which had a lot of student protestors at the time), for being members of the political opposition, for breaking curfew, for looking Chinese ("You look Chinese. China is a communist country. You must be a communist!" -as detailed by Susan Quimpo, author of Subversive Lives in a talk), for gathering in groups of 3 or more (including school study groups) and basically "just because" (the term in Filipino is "Napagkursunadahan". I'm not sure how to translate that. Something like the members of the military just arbitrarily decided to pick on someone and do a power trip.) For an idea of how horrific human rights violations were at the time, please watch this recent documentary with interviews of victims produced by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, So Why Samar - it details grisly acts of human violation like rape, torture, sexual molestation, murder then mutilation of the corpse, burying civilians alive, roasting people on spits then eating them (yes, members of the military committed cannibalism to terrorize members of the populace), etc.

The narrative that User:Thetruth16 is trying to spin is that it was primarily the CPP-NPA and MNLF who were the targets of human rights abuses, when the fact was it could just be plain ANYONE. I'll need to dig up more sources on this to validate it, but those are the facts. So yeah, that sentence is in need of a major rewrite. -Object404 (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've re-worded the initial sentence to: "Farmers, student protesters, leftists, political opponents and members of the media were frequent targets of human rights violations. Anyone simply accused of being members or sympathizing with the CPP, NPA or MNLF would just be arrested (or abducted) with ease." ...Less ungainly, yes? -Object404 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the statement "I'll need to dig up more sources on this to validate it, but those are the facts" is problematic. How about putting out the needed sources before publishing them as facts? Also the link to the one source above is from an opinion column on Inquirer. I'd recommend mentioning the name of the author who published those "opinions" in order to present the subject in the most encyclopedic and neutral way. It would also help to mention the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and the CHR chair at that time that came up with those findings. Every generalization or potentially controversial conclusion should be quoted as coming from a named source. Also, it would help that the article be rewritten not by a yellow or red shirt. Just my 2 cents.--RioHondo (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Good notes. AFAIK only cited info are in the article proper, I was just painting a better picture for just the people here in the talk page of what Martial Law to 1986 was like. Of course, these will all need WP:RS citations if any of the above content were to be placed in the article proper. Note that I am not a "yellow shirt", and I consider Noynoy Aquino to have been an incompetent President. -Object404 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As i said, mention the name of the authors whose opinions are being presented here as facts. Especially those that are potentially controversial and contested by different sectors/along partisan lines. In the same way that when an article calls your Corazon Aquino as an ambitious housewife, you have to mention the person that called her as such.--RioHondo (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What if there are multiple source citations corroborating a piece of info stated - do all the sources still need to be named? Wouldn't that bloat the article? -Object404 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Corazon Aquino had A LOT of faults, massive failures and shortcomings as a president. -Object404 (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

And again, this article needs to be rewritten by a disinterested editor.--RioHondo (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Object404's statement "I'll need to dig up more sources on this to validate it, but those are the facts" practically defines what confirmation bias is. Moreover, using long lead as an reason, Object404 erased other well-cited contributions and removed a lot of context - to the point of tipping the balance strongly towards his view and making the lead no longer consistent with WP:NPOV. I will be rewriting and adding back some of the items deleted and present them in a more balanced and concise manner. Finally, because Ferdinand Marcos was a president for two decades, it would be reasonable to expect that the lead in his article will be longer than those of other presidents like Corazon Aquino and Fidel Ramos, although probably not as long as the version last week.Thetruth16 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that other longer-standing leaders like Joseph Stalin (3 April 1922 – 16 October 1952) and Fidel Castro (December 2, 1976 – February 24, 2008) have relatively short lead sections. Keep it that way. As for my "confirmation bias", I've recently been attending presentations on Marcos martial law and reading books, that's where those stories come from. I'll cite sources before putting them on the wiki. This is just the talk page so I stated the above informally -- I wouldn't put those statements above in the main article without citing sources. I've cited 3 sources for "anyone/anybody" could be picked up during martial law. Fair enough? -Object404 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Object404 Regarding confirmation bias, reading-up anti-marcos articles and attending anti-marcos seminars which conforms to your thinking still is confirmation bias. How about reading more academic / less-biased or even pro-marcos sources placing equal weight to them in your mind and seeing why they are not necessarily wrong. The problem is you simply dismiss many context (or at least don't want them to be included in the summary) which results to painting Marcos as a villain, intentionally or not. Current version of lead is shorter than that of Joseph Stalin, and bulk of the length is introduced by controversies. We have terms like 'kleptocrat' and its related word 'kleptoracy' repeated in the lead. Regarding Marcos' medals controversy, after the part 'a number of claims have been found as false', you added .. 'United States Army documents described Marcos's wartime claims as "fraudulent" and "absurd"' even if this is already superfluous especially for the lead as previous sentence already conveyed the meaning. Now after introducing superfluous contributions critical of Marcos, you are making an excuse to remove important contexts like 'Citing more than 15 bombing incidences like the Plaza Miranda Bombing and an intensifying armed communist insurgency' before 'declaring martial law' Thetruth16 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

They're not "anti-marcos" seminars. They're history seminars, and they don't "conform to my thinking" - I learned things that were new to me. And I AM reading and citing academic sources. Are you saying Marcos was not a villain? Just like how you said you said you "weren't in a position to say whether he was a kleptocrat or not"? You're also simplifying the start of martial law with a sentence that's inaccurate - Marcos planned martial law long before September 1972 as evidenced by his diaries. You also didn't mention the fake ambush of Enrile as one of his reasons for declaring Martial law, and including such would be too long for the lead section. The start of martial law is best discussed in detail in its main section. I've removed the 2nd instance of "kleptocrat" and replaced it with "conjugal dictatorship" which fits the sentence more. I've also clarified the sentence about the economy to say that it was good during the beginning and the middle. Sound good? -Object404 (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ferdinand 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101227223116/http://www.utoledo.edu/as/pdfs/100years.pdf to http://www.utoledo.edu/as/pdfs/100years.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826033152/http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/fourth-republic/ferdinand-marcos/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/fourth-republic/ferdinand-marcos/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gov.ph/downloads/1992/06jun/19920630-Ramos.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826033152/http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/fourth-republic/ferdinand-marcos/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/fourth-republic/ferdinand-marcos/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719045259/http://www3.pids.gov.ph/ris/pdf/pidsdps9604.PDF to http://www3.pids.gov.ph/ris/pdf/pidsdps9604.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103180040/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/06/supreme-court-rules-in-marcos-assets.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/06/supreme-court-rules-in-marcos-assets.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823024253/http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/marcos.html to http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/marcos.html

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) 15:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This wiki gets mentioned in Guardian

Hurrah! This wiki got mentioned today on the guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/02/wiki-warriors-activists-fighting-to-keep-truth-of-brutal-marcos-regime-in-philippines-alive

I am not usually one to unnecessarily get jubilant, but my college professor had always reminded us that Wikipedia is NOT considered a reliable source for academic work (I too followed the same rule when I became a college lecturer). Well, looks like newspapers are ok with it! Notthebestusername (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the Guardian article points out exactly why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic work. The Marcos page is an example of a page which is regularly vandalised, by Marcos relatives and cronies and their agents, who seek to conceal the facts of his brutal rule. They would like to suppress information about his thefts of billions of dollars, which reduced a once-thriving country to poverty, in the hope that one day, they too might be able to win political power and enrich themselves at the expense of the long-suffering population. Sayitclearly (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

IRRI and "Economic Controversies"

This article recently stated that "Marcos brought the green revolution to the Philippines." That's a POV statement, clearly, but it is also false. Robert F. Chandler and J. George Harrar, working with the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, had approached the Department of Agriculture and the UP College of Agriculture about putting up IRRI as early as 1958, during the administration of Carlos P. Garcia, and IRRI itself was established in 1960 - again during the Garcia administration. But any assertion that the institution (and the green revolution its arrival heralded) was "brought" by a president is just political propaganda of the most despicable kind. Applied scientists (albeit funded by two foundations) brought it. Politicians did nothing but acquiesce to the suggestion and support the logistical requisites. I shall now rewrite the sentence. Someone else can decide whether it actually belongs in the "controversies" section. - Alternativity (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Done. I've corrected factual errors about the foundation of IRRI and the attendant rise of the green revolution in the Philippines, retaining the sentences about the controversies linked to the Marcos admin's promotion of Miracle Rice (IR8). I haven't touched anything else in that section. I must point out that the flow of that section doesn't make sense. Even before I did the edit, it jumped from Land reform to rice policy back to land reform back to rice policy with no recognizable structure. Perhaps most importantly, there is no introductory pargraph in that section which explains why all this merits the heading "controversies." I might try to fix this at a later time, (I would need to beef up on my history of Ph agricultural policy) but if someone wants to do so before me, please feel welcome to do so. - Alternativity (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've tried my best to re-organize the section so that it makes a bit more sense, but it still needs more work. Since this section is under "economy", I've renamed it "economic controversies" for now to make it clearer why it's here. But I'm not sure if "Controversies regarding the economy" is a better heading? Someone with more knowledge might want to fix this. - Alternativity (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ferdinand 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151023074523/http://asianjournalusa.com/chronology-of-the-marcos-plunder-p10909-67.htm to http://asianjournalusa.com/chronology-of-the-marcos-plunder-p10909-67.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029203725/http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/ch03.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/ch03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161127024018/http://www.up.edu.ph/signposts-in-the-history-of-activism-in-the-university-of-the-philippines/ to http://www.up.edu.ph/signposts-in-the-history-of-activism-in-the-university-of-the-philippines/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141002103332/http://globalnation.inquirer.net/columns/columns/view/20090819-221072/Who-ordered-the-hit-on-Ninoy-Aquino to http://globalnation.inquirer.net/columns/columns/view/20090819-221072/Who-ordered-the-hit-on-Ninoy-Aquino

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) 21:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ferdinand 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160417174358/http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/toolkit/f1tof7.pdf to http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/toolkit/f1tof7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170208013943/http://asianjournalusa.com/marcos-fake-medals-redux-part-i-p10722-168.htm to http://asianjournalusa.com/marcos-fake-medals-redux-part-i-p10722-168.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305025238/http://asianjournalusa.com/marcos-fake-medals-redux-part-ii-p10766-168.htm to http://asianjournalusa.com/marcos-fake-medals-redux-part-ii-p10766-168.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170208013943/http://asianjournalusa.com/marcos-fake-medals-redux-part-i-p10722-168.htm to http://asianjournalusa.com/marcos-fake-medals-redux-part-i-p10722-168.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714231520/http://asianjournalusa.com/marcos-fake-medals-redux-part-iii-p10829-168.htm to http://asianjournalusa.com/marcos-fake-medals-redux-part-iii-p10829-168.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160610115431/http://manilastandardtoday.com/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html to http://manilastandardtoday.com/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/temp/10-03/home/State%20Universities%20and%20Colleges%20Statistical%20Bulletin.pd

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) 16:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Notes and references

Hey this is all not true.. Make a deep research first.. GreamSpeaks (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Messing with dead bodies is molestation not torture

Someone should change tortures to molestations or reverse the order of killings and tortures.2605:E000:9143:7000:8137:276C:2FA4:A843 (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

Delete duplicate "and" from introductory sentence. 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:BA (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC) 2A01:388:289:150:0:0:1:BA (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

There is a "On January" in here with a year following and it grammatically should be "In January" 2605:E000:9143:7000:F4B9:FFFC:4256:7B63 (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead section neutrality

The lead section may be more inclined into a particular point of view to Ferdinand Marcos. --JethRoad the FactBoy 15:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific if you wish the tag to remain. What facts are in dispute? Scr★pIron^IV 16:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead section is well-cited. I'd say it was being objective. -Object404 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying that the facts are false but what I am pointing out is that it is more slanted towards a particular point of view where it creates an unbalanced weight.--JethRoad the FactBoy 03:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What point of view seems to be overemphasized for you? Alexius08 (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Excess in the lede section, possibly abuse

Hi there,

apparently my edits are unpopular with some, so i'll address my issue here, so that perhaps we can determine the correct course of action.

I removed the mentions of "dictator" and "kleptocrat" in that intro section, as i deem them too decisive, too conclusive, and my edits got reverted. I prefer such mentions to be further down in the body of the article ; as i wrote in one of my edits (suppressing those mentions), i think that those are "insulting to the reader, ordering them what to think" (before they've even read any further). I have been told that my edits are "tantamount to historical whitewashing". This is where i disagree : the "dictator" qualifier is repeatedly throughout the body of the article, whereas "kleptocrat" is present only in the intro. As concerns the latter, if that isn't detailed in the body of the article, it has no business being in the introductory summary. As concerns the former, if indeed all of the article agrees with the subject having been a "true-blue" dictator, then i suppose that it has its place in the intro. But for that everyone needs to agree with that statement, which i suppose not everyone does (and i am told that there are "revisionists" lurking about, so i suppose that they don't agree).

When tackling controversial aspects, it is better to say that so-and-so said A, whereas that other so-and-so said B, that is, present both sides of the argument, and let the reader draw their own conclusion. We are not the supreme court.

I'd like to have your opinion below, to see whether i'm making all of this up or whether my point is a valid one. Thanks in advance. —Jerome Potts (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a deceased person and, as such does not need to conform to BLP policy.

I think that his history of dictatorship and kelptocracy are two of the most notable features of Marcos' reign and the lede would not be a fair executive summary of the article if they were not mentioned.

However, if his kleptomaniac tendencies really are not mentioned in later sections, then they definitely need to be! BushelCandle (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(later) Mmmm, I see that our "legacy" section does mention his thieving:

"According to Presidential Commission on Good Government, the Marcos family and their cronies looted so much wealth from the Philippines that, to this day, investigators have difficulty determining precisely how many billions of dollars were stolen. The agency claimed that Marcos stole around $5 to $10 billion from the Philippine treasury. Adjusted for inflation, this would be equivalent to about USD11.16 to USD22.3 billion or over 550 billion to 1.1 trillion Philippine pesos in 2017."

BushelCandle (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with BushelCandle. Furthermore, on kleptocracy, let us not forget that for 10 or more years, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were on the Guinness Book of World Records for the "largest-ever theft". They were only removed when the category was eventually retired. This fact is listed in the article body as per your criteria, Jerome Potts. Putting "kleptocrat" in the lede is accurate and is simply calling a spade a spade. It is a neutral introduction to the late dictator. -Object404 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

i agree with you Jerome Potts... PCGG is not supreme court. There should be a reference here from the supreme court that says ferdinand marcos was found guilty before mentioning "kleptocrat" in the intro. Maguila14 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References and notes

References

Notes

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

"efore" = "before" 2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Simplexity22 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

MOS and OVERCITE issues

This article and clearly the WP:LEDE suffers from the WP:CITEKILL and issues with things cited mid-sentence (WP:MOS violation). This needs to be rectified. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Gross Domestic Product boxes under Economics Performance Section

Hello, this will be my first talk post in Wikipedia so apologies in advance on the mistakes I'll make

On the 3 box sections on the right side on

1. Economic Performance[[1]]

, it says that the GDP on the Philippines are as follow:

• 1966 with ₱285,886 million (USD73.3 billion)
• 1971 with ₱361,791 million (USD56.7 billion)
• 1972 with ₱400,850 million (US$62.24 billion)
• 1981 with ₱1,782,350 million (US$225.61 billion)

The four items are inaccurate. Even in the same section namely Debt, it says

Philippine Annual Gross Domestic Product grew from $5.27 billion in 1964 to $37.14 billion in 1982, a year prior to the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. The GDP went down to $30.7 billion in 1985, after two years of economic recession brought about by political instability following Ninoy's assassination.

Also, instead of measuring the GDP growth from 1964 it should start at 1966 instead, since Marcos wasn't a president yet at 1964.

In the website of,

1. Worldbank[[2]], the GDP in the Philippines were

• 1966 with USD6.371 billion
• 1971 with USD7.408 billion
• 1972 with US$8.017 billion
• 1981 with US$35.646 billion

I'm having a hard time finding sources for currency exchange of the Philippines Peso to US Dollars of 1966-1986 so I won't include it.

I think the figures above is more accurate and more consistent with the other information in the page. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catcircus (talk • contribs) 07:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracies the Gross Domestic Product boxes under Economics Performance Section

Hello, this will be my first talk post in Wikipedia so apologies in advance on the mistakes I'll make

On the 3 box sections on the right side on

1. Economics Performance[[3]]

, it says that the GDP on the Philippines are as follow:

• 1966 with ₱285,886 million (USD $73.3 billion)
• 1971 with ₱361,791 million (USD $56.7 billion)
• 1972 with ₱400,850 million (USD $62.24 billion)
• 1981 with ₱1,782,350 million (USD $225.61 billion)

The four items are inaccurate. Even in the same section namely Debt, it says

Philippine Annual Gross Domestic Product grew from $5.27 billion in 1964 to $37.14 billion in 1982, a year prior to the assassination of Ninoy Aquino. The GDP went down to $30.7 billion in 1985, after two years of economic recession brought about by political instability following Ninoy's assassination.

Also, instead of measuring the GDP growth from 1964 it should start at 1966 instead, since Marcos wasn't a president yet at 1964.

In the website of

1. Worldbank[[4]], the GDP in the Philippines were

• 1966 with USD $6.371 billion
• 1971 with USD $7.408 billion
• 1972 with USD $8.017 billion
• 1981 with USD $35.646 billion

I'm having a hard time finding sources for currency exchange of the Philippines Peso to US Dollars of 1966-1986 so I won't include it.

I think the figures above is more accurate and more consistent with the other information in the page. Thanks in advance

Truth by plurality?

Since when is encyclopedic truth defined by having multiple opinion pieces?

The word "kleptocrat" -- which is a neologism that does not exist as a legitimate political science term -- is in the opening graf, with six citations, all of which are opinion pieces. "Kleptocrat" is not an identifiable political structure, it's an epithet used to describe corrupt politicians. Nobody calls themselves a kleptocrat, there is no Kleptocratic Party of wherever, and there is no International Kleptocratic Society or any such thing that would tie the word to a particular idology or government structure. It's simply a opinion, and a biased one at that.

No matter how many people hold an opinion, it's still an opinion, not a fact.

People holding the opinion, that's a fact. The opinion being a fact, not so much.

So why is there POV in the opening graf? Citations aren't bullets, you don't get to win an argument by having more of them, especially if they're all POV.

Try to be encylopedic, people, not ideologic.

Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

According to the OED, "kleptocracy" and "kleptocrat" has been attested to have existed since the 1960s. This is hardly a neologism any more. And political scientists have been using these terms since at least the 1990s as can be seen by a search in Google Scholar. Also, Wikipedia does not focus on facts, per se, but rather on WP:VERIFIABILITY. (See WP:TRUTH for a more extensive discussion on this.) The thing is, there is no objective definition that people agree with on whether a certain politician is a kleptocrat or not. But if many reliable (and respected) sources say that a politician is a kleptocrat, it is not against Wikipedia policy to state that assertion. This is not an issue of "encyclopedicness" or of ideology. —seav (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the difference between stating something is true, and stating that someone says something is true. If many sources call Obama a Muslim, the article for him should not open with "is a Muslim politician" because it is not a verifiable fact that he is; it is only a verifiable fact that people say he is. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is a valid comparison. It can be easily checked whether Obama has ever practiced Islam or not. And you also have to look at the people and sources that say Obama is a Muslim. Are they reliable or credible? On the other hand, whether a politician is actually a kleptocrat or not is not something you can check with certainty since there is no objective criteria that anybody can check against. I don't think any person tagged as a kleptocrat will ever admit that they are one. On the other hand, plenty of reliable and credible sources say Marcos is a kleptocrat. —seav (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

not something you can check with certainty since there is no objective criteria that anybody can check Yes; that's precisely why it does not belong as an assertion in an encyclopedic text. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 09:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. There is objective criteria one can check against to be determined a kleptocrat. See definition of Kleptocrat below. -Object404 (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So true. This immediately struck me a not being encyclopedic. Certainly not in the first sentence. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read this article on Ferdinand Marcos: Skeletons of their kleptocracy. There is also a hard definition on the term kleptocrat: "A ruler who uses their power to steal their country's resources." from the Oxford English Dictionary. Marcos is clearly within this definition and it was one of his largest defining characteristics, hence it stays in the lede. -Object404 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

On a controversial historical figure, there will be no shortage of opinions published. But that doesn't make an obscure term proper encyclopedic wording in the lead of the article. I don't dispute that he was one of the low figures in history and likely a thief, but POV is not encyclopedic. It makes a clumsy entry to the article, and cheapens the reputation of the WP project. --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not "likely". He is proven a thief in multiple courts and supporting historical documents. The word kleptocrat does not cheapen the WP project, it succinctly describes one of his defining characteristics. On the contrary, it is "cheapening" his legacy by removing the word. Marcos was the Philippine holocaust and there is an ongoing movement for historical negationism#Martial_Law_Negationism_in_the_Philippines and historical revisionism of his acts and legacy. Please do not be part of it. Read: Wiki warriors: activists fighting to keep truth of brutal Marcos regime in Philippines alive -Object404 (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of all, that Marcos was a kleptocrat is not POV, it is historical fact. -Object404 (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Prime Minister discussion

Please see the discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of the Philippines#Prime Minister office assertions prior to 1978 appear problematic and comment there as appropriate. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)