Jump to content

Talk:Imelda Marcos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Former good articleImelda Marcos was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
March 31, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
March 23, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 26, 2016Good article nomineeListed
April 29, 2016Peer reviewNot reviewed
May 6, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 9, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 31, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Imelda Marcos (pictured) spent US$2,000 on chewing gum in an airport stop?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 4, 2014, and November 4, 2016.
Current status: Delisted good article

stole billions? convicted criminal? please fix this

someone please edit this, google/Wikipedia is meant for true facts not wrong accusations. Gooskitzo (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fully sourced to WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sources came from medias that supports the obligarchs and leftists Showbizph (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Showbizph: Please provide a link to actual reliable sources that prove otherwise. Chlod (say hi!) 07:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pls correct this.. for once stip being bias Showbizph (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chlod i agree that your article for Mrs Marcos is well provided with sources. Sources from the leftist and from medias whom nothing good to say about the Marcoses. Let me ask you one thing, Are you aware that the family was acquitted and found inocent in so many cases filed to them. That your sources wrote that when they're still undergoing that trial and how about now that they got acquitted in their so called claims? Did they took time to revise their "accusations"? Guess you have to update your outdated and must say bias article. Showbizph (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi ba to bias

Sino nag sulat? 49.230.48.178 (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you'll need to write in English here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should correct this.. this is so bias and some are not yet proven Showbizph (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Showbizph! Kindly list down what sections need to be changed and what exactly they need to be changed into. Please ensure that your desired changes are back up by sufficient sourcing as well from reliable sources in accordance with WP:RS .
If you have found an issue with the factuality of some of the information in this article, please feel free to show evidence that shows that they are not true from reliable sources as well Firekiino (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Whoever author this pls stop being bias. For 36 years filipinos have been brainwashed by this leftist.. Imelda Marcos was acquitted in thousand cases filed by the Aquino's using the power of government and medias to strengthen thier claims against the Marcoses.. Showbizph (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims is blatantly wrong and does not promote neutral point of view. Seems like a pro-Marcos guy trying to start an edit war against other editors here. The almighty anomalocarischat 11:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are your concrete claims to prove that Imelda is finally innocent? (I'm sorry I can't allow YT conspiracy videos due to being user-generated content which is sometimes not reliable. Thanks. The almighty anomalocarischat 11:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... about the shoes

Are we just failing the article having only a single pair here and at Wikicommons? or there legitimately aren't actual photographs of an actual collection and this is just a successful urban myth / political hit job? — LlywelynII 13:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vice has a piece here (with photos!) Howard the Duck (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the picture of Marcos used on this page so creepy?

Can it please be changed? PLEASE??? Disabled Lemon (talk) 1:47 2 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the lead image about three years ago. See Talk:Imelda Marcos/Archive 4#Photo. Perhaps we now need a re-run? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]