Talk:Ferdinand Marcos

kleptocrat?

really? you have proof for this shitty article which is admissible by evidence not hearsay 2001:4455:6CB:1200:51F8:BC47:4A8C:DEDA (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Please read https://factcheck.afp.com/philippine-supreme-court-ruled-three-times-ferdinand-marcos-must-give-back-millions-he-stole-his. -Object404 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

"Ordinary citizens"

End of second paragraph states: "political opposition, Muslims, suspected communists, and ordinary citizens." This wording should be revised for WP:Othering. As written, it implies that the subgroups preceding "ordinary citizens" are not themselves ordinary, which is the same logic used by Marcos to persecute the subgroups.

Suggested change could look like: "political opposition, Muslims, suspected communists, and people not accused of any specific alleged wrongdoing." Flavoredquark (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The Marcos hidden accounts

Simple he was being paid by President Reagan for the use of the Philippine Nuclear Power Station for his Star war program. Built by the French and leased to President Marcos the only thing he didn’t tel Reagan is it was never commissioned hahaha . Like Troops going to Vietnam! . That was never on the Government’s accounts when he left. Because you would have thought that payments from the US Government would show up. 2A00:23CC:B492:5201:2DBC:572D:2AA3:1CFB (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There are quotation marks around the words dictator and kleptocrat in the lede.

100.8.136.72 (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Flag - More Info

Hey, y'all. I've just been reading up on Marcos as a matter of interest and I find that this article is in need of improvements. While the information in the article, at least to my knowledge, is complete and comprehensive, it is structured and written in ways that make it difficult to understand or use effectively. I've flagged three main issues with this article, which I'll address one at a time.

1. Tone: the tone of the article switches throughout and several sections feel very much like a personal diatribe written by someone who dislikes Marcos (not judging, he was a really bad person, but this is an encyclopedia). It also feels like the article is leading the reader to make certain conclusions about Marcos (which seems superfluous, considering how much he stole, but I digress), which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.
2. The sectioning in this article is odd, to say the least, especially the sections regarding Marcos' terms as President. The writing skips back and forth between historical events in a confusing way, and there are several very similarly headed sections right near each other that make navigation difficult. These sections should probably be reorganised to better fit the Style Guide, and can probably be condensed or subheaded more clearly.
3. Repetition: Several facts within the article are repeated almost verbatim throughout. Some of these facts are included in sections where it doesn't seem they best fit. Additionally, throughout the section on his actions as President, there is this kind of foreshadowing that makes the article difficult to read at best.

As the guidelines make clear, the multiple issues flag doesn't exist to pile on to the author of an article, or authors for that matter. That being said, there are other, smaller issues with the article that could do with addressing, if a major clean-up occurs. These include some issues with referencing, missing dates, missing page numbers, and other such referencing errors.

There is also some sections that could do with restructuring to make them more clear. In some paragraphs, the events mentioned are only loosely connected by dates, and the article jumps back and forth in time in confusing ways. The use of full names, as opposed to just last names, should be considered in certain sections where it is unclear about whom the article is speaking.

Overall, while the article seems to be an excellent source of knowledge about Marcos and his regime, its structural problems obfuscate that and make it difficult to parse all that information. If I am able to, I will dedicate some serious time to restructuring the article in a sandbox before rolling it out. Any advice from local experts on Marcos or Filipino politics in general would be much appreciated to ensure a cleaned-up version does not miss anything important.

Any questions, comments, or suggestions are welcome BigBoiiLeem (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)