Talk:Imelda Marcos/Archive 2

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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Imeldific (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos → Imelda – Because...

• "State Visit to the Kingdom of Thailand by President Ferdinand Marcos & First Lady Imelda Marcos". Philippine Diplomatic Visits. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 39 (help)
• Yolanda destroys Imelda’s ancestral house in Leyte. GMA News. November 19, 2013.
• De Leon-Huld, Nickee (March 29, 2012). "Carlos Celdran cancels 'Imelda' tour in Dubai". Asian Journal. Retrieved May 13, 2012. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help)
• Whaley, Floyd (October 12, 2012). "In Manila, 'Livin' La Vida Imelda!'". New York Times. Retrieved October 14, 2012. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |trans_title= (help)
• "CCP faces protest for Imelda tribute". ABS-CBN. September 9, 2009
• "Imelda" – Documentary on Imelda Marcos Independent Lens
• Director fights for Imelda movie. BBC News. July 7, 2004.
• Imelda: The Words. Independent Lens, PBS.
• De Lima, Frank. "Imelda." The Best of De Lima. Pocholoinga Productions, 1988.
• Yolanda destroys Imelda’s ancestral house in Leyte. GMA News. November 19, 2013.
• Imelda describes Arroyo's situation 'inhumane'. ABS-CBN News. January 23, 2014
• Imelda loses jewels in the Marcos crown. The Age. September 17, 2005.
• Imelda seeks second term, files COC. ABS-CBN News. October 3, 2012.
• "Philippine court orders Imelda to repay funds", The Philippine News, Monday, April 11, 2011 (AFP story)
• Sandigan OKs Imelda bid for daily hearings on graft cases. GMA News. September 21, 2007.
• Homage to Imelda's shoes. BBC News. February 16, 2001.</ref> In 2004, the Global Transparency Report published a study that showed she and her husband amassed $5–10 billion.
• Imelda's crown jewels to go under the hammer BBC News, May 13, 2003
• No Apology, It Was a Godly Act – Imelda. October 14, 1998.
• Katherine Ellison, Imelda, Steel Butterfly of the Philippines, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988. ISBN 0-07-019335-5
• Imelda camp mum on Newsweek’s ‘greediest’ tag. GMA News. April 6, 2009.
• Review: ‘Imelda’. Variety. March 17, 2004.
• Imelda. Film Threat.
• Short Reviews: Imelda. The Phoenix. August 6–12, 2004.
• Imelda. Deseret News. December 2, 2004.
• Masagana 99, Nutribun, and Imelda's 'edifice complex' of hospitals. GMA News. September 20, 2012.
• Ramona Diaz. Imelda. Ramona Diaz-Independent Television Service, 2003.
• 'Imelda': Don't Cry for Her. The Washington Post. July 16, 2004.

Imeldific (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

— Imeldific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hatting courtesy me! 220 of ^Borg 06:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nearly every reference provided uses the name "Imelda Marcos" on first reference. We don't use headlinese for article titles. Calidum 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an encyclopedia. Cf. Lula, Obama, Mao. —  AjaxSmack  03:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per the aboves. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Close as frivolous In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Encyclopaedia? (per AjaxSmack) Sure as hell hope so! 220 of ^Borg 06:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment:. My edit here and move proposers edits here (basically blindly reverting my edit without any explanation) are related to the naming issue and should be of interest. 220 of ^Borg 06:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I unhatted the links in the nomination. The hatnote was messing up WP:RMCD. See [3] Calidum 07:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, but I still think it was an improvement! 220 of ^Borg 07:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Close as frivolous the number of historical figures generally known by first name only is tiny and Mrs Marcos isn't one of them. An article called 'Imelda', could be about anything, even the present redirect is probably wrong 'Imelda' should go to the name, the title there btw could be wrong, since the name is only originally Italian and includes a few places etc..Pincrete (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: @Pincrete: Curiouser and curiouser! The redirect was, for over 9.5 years until 23 March 2015‎, exactly as you said. It was changed by Luvcookies (talk · contribs) who was a blocked as a sock of an indef banned editor. Very interesting! - 220 of ^Borg 12:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: № 2 - I have re-directed Imelda back to Imelda (Italian given name), so at least it no longer goes to Marcos. Wait, do I hear a Duck quacking? 220 of ^Borg 12:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: № 3 - Those ducks are now deafening! I was wondering what the username 'Imeldific' was about, see Wiktionary:Imeldific - 220 of ^Borg 12:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Fairly trivial point in the circumstances, but while we are about it, does it make sense to change Imelda (Italian given name) to Imelda (name) or plain Imelda? Unsure of protocol here.Pincrete (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I submitted a technical request to reverse that not-discussed move, see here. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sorry, Pincrete. WP:NCP and WP:NATURAL would discourage such parenthetical disambiguation using just the first name, especially when "Imelda Marcos" is fairly often used name per many books and news articles, according to Google. And the proposed title violates WP:COMMONNAME, which says ambiguous names are discouraged, even when commonly used. George Ho (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

George Ho, sorry, but just to be clear 'Imelda' now redirects to Imelda (Italian given name) (a list of uses of "Imelda", most, but not all of which are human names). My suggestions were to change Imelda (Italian given name) to either Imelda (name) or plain Imelda, ie the name/dab becomes the primary topic of 'Imelda', there being unlikely to emerge another candidate for 'one word' primary.

I think the original name change proposal (Marcos, which I also oppose) is now 'dead in the water'. Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

My mistake; modifying my post. George Ho (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Citing a bunch of news articles is one thing, but the OP never gave a reasonable explanation as to why this article should become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the search term "Imelda" out of all the topics listed on the Imelda page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The ongoing dispute above is simmering into an WP:edit war. Please HELP! Imeldific (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

What are we supposed to comment on? I suggest a rewrite giving a neutral account of the dispute. Pincrete (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• There was/is a dispute about the points enumerated below.

1. She just won the election. Please look at the article. ("Imelda, Imee poised for re-election in Ilocos Norte". ABS-CBN News. May 9, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2016.)
2. The Here Lies Love section has been there for years. It is only getting an update. ("Here Lies Love to Play West Coast's A.C.T." Playbill. April 15, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016., "Here Lies Love to Play Seattle Rep". Playbill. April 25, 2016. Retrieved May 25, 2016.)
3. The words "kleptocrat" and plunder are mentioned in the heading on the last paragraph with better flow and logic
4. The are too much categories in the bottom which violates WP:Overcategorization.
5. The use of her mononym "Imelda" has been mixed but there are references that use it alone without her married name both from inside and outside the Philippines. (Ellison, Katherine. Imelda, Steel Butterfly of the Philippines, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988. ISBN 0-07-019335-5.)

It seems to be settled mostly, but it might not yet be final. Imeldific (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We record that she was often referred to by the mononym, and use it in quotes. We DON"T use it ourselves in 'our voice'. The present effect is of an absurd teenage fan-site, not an encyc. entry for a notable political figure. Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If the Oprah Winfrey article uses the full name, then I see no reason for this article to use a mononym. Mononyms should be used when the full name is almost never used, or relatively unknown (such as Madonna), while Imedla Marcos us referred to by her full name very often. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto 'Elvis'. Royals, known by their titles and historical figures (Dante?), whose surnames are scarcely ever used are an exception. The answer to overcategorization, is to remove those for which she is NOT mainly known (inc. relatively trivial awards?), which are 'non-defining'. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This article falls under Philippine naming customs which has a tradition of using mononyms for public figures, i.e. Dolphy, Karylle, Babalu, Mocha, Jopay, Kyla, and Pokwang. Imeldific (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Even international publications treat her mononymously. Imeldific (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is from My afternoon with Imelda Marcos. Fortune. January 9, 2014:

"Along with the regal side comes the mothering — Imelda strives to portray herself as a champion of the poor and downtrodden. She’s a success in politics selling that message. Imelda is now serving a second term as a congresswoman from Ilocos Norte, her late husband’s province, and one of the nation’s most important. In that role, she has built 11 “Mothering Centers” in the region, facilities that dispatch ambulances to rescue poor farmers who fall ill, and provide job counseling and legal advice. And she claims to be funding the centers with her own money. The Mothering Centers, says Francisco “Kit” Tatad, the Minister of Public Information for 11 years under the late Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, and now a prominent columnist and political advisor, are a reminder of the creativity Imelda displayed as First Lady. She strove to promote the nation’s native products, and found extremely original ways to do it. Tatad took me on a Sunday tour of the Coconut Palace, an Imelda creation that is currently the workplace for the Vice President. He recalls that Imelda virtually served as “foreman” on the project, supervising every detail of design and construction. The idea was to show the versatility of one of the nation’s leading agricultural crops. The entire mansion, consisting mainly of six-side rooms, is made from coconut wood, including the columns, moldings, shutters, even the furniture."

Worth noting that in that article the title, first two mentions, and final mention all call her "Imelda Marcos", not simply Imelda. The mononym is not at all universally used. And many of the sources used in the article (including this, this, this, and this) never refer to her as simply "Imelda", always "Marcos", "Imelda Marcos", "Mrs Marcos" etc. Also worth noting that all of your examples of mononymous Filippinos are stage names of entertainers; Imelda Marcos is primarily known for her politics. I'm not at all convinced that just because there are a number of entertainers with mononymous stage names that it's therefore common for all public figures, any more than I am by the argument that the existence of Beyonce, Eminem, Madonna and Prince demonstrates that prominent Americans are usually monomymous and therefore we should be writing articles about Hillary and Donald. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

She was an entertainer prior to serving as First Lady and she continued to be so for 12 years when she was not in office between 1998 until 2010. She also qualifies on a first name recognition on par with Dante, Leonardo and Catherine. Imeldific (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Marcos was an entertainer; I'm just pointing out that that is not what she is known for primarily. Our article barely mentions her entertainment career. If she did perform under the mononym "Imelda", that would be worth mentioning, but it wouldn't justify referring to her solely as Imelda throughout the articles.

As for "first name recognition on a par with Dante, Leonardo, and Catherine": firstly, that's quite the claim, and I would argue that she definitely doesn't globally, though it might be true in the Phillipines; secondly, all three of these examples come from a time before modern naming conventions (and surnames) had properly developed. Neither "da Vinci" or "degli Alighieri" is a surname; "da Vinci" refers to Leonardo's place of birth, and "degli Alighieri" is a patronymic. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. It is also worth pointing out that there is no such policy or guideline on Wikipedia as ' Philippine naming customs'; As I said in a recent edit-summary, we have to follow WP:MOS, and particularly, WP:MONONYM: which exceptions provided are in no way similar to the subject here. I have tailored the article's naming conventions accordingly. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SAMESURNAME, parts of the article will still need to use her first name only to distinguish her from Ferdinand, Imee, and Bongbong. Imeldific (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

From:WP:SAMESURNAME "When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing.." ie, occasionally it may be necessary to use both (or him/her?). Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just So. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose use of mononym - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Comment - Concurring with Pincrete, above. Could we have a clear, neutral statement of the question on which editors comments are sought? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72, the main issue appeared to be whether Imelda Marcos should be mainly referred to by her 'mononyn' ie 'Imelda', as was the case when the RfC was called, in most instances now the full name is used. Pincrete (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes; the RfC was merely an attempt to blindside the consensus of all but the one editor, who then proceeded to edit-war the mononym back in, resulting in his getting blocked. Hi, Imeldific. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• On the question of the use of the mononym in Wikipedia's voice, our policies & guidelines would appear to be clear (and to have been clearly articulated by Pincrete above). While "Imelda" may be sufficient for unambiguous identification inside the Philippines, it is certainly not sufficient outside that nation. Each of the sources mentioned above as using the mononym appears to make an initial use of the whole name. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72, Pincrete. I'm ignoring the other one. From WP:SAMESURNAME. The key clauses are bolded.Imeldific (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to the people by given names for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing.

For example, in the text of an article on Ronald Reagan:

Correct:	Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately; Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.
Correct:	The Reagans arrived separately; Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.
Incorrect:	Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately; Ronald Reagan by helicopter and Nancy Reagan by car.

In the text of an article about the Brothers Grimm:

Correct:	Jacob Grimm was 14 months older than his brother, Wilhelm.
Incorrect:	Jacob Grimm was 14 months older than his brother, Wilhelm Grimm.

Prev left unsigned by Imeldific

Disingenuous to day the least. As your example makes sufficiently clear, that stricture only applies when naming two people of the same surname consecutively. This rarely applies in this article, where you want to use her given name throughout. In any case, that also does not preclude referring to her without a name: she, her, Mrs, etc. BTW I have removed your tendentious tag from the article as there is currently no consensus that neutrality is disputed. Except by you. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLESINTITLES, Using Mrs. is incorrect.Imeldific (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Per the fact that we are not discussing a title within a title, that's irrelevant. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it was WP:HONORIFICS, Mrs. is incorrect.Imeldific (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, no need to apologise for being incorrect. Again. Does it go on to say, "The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which is not relevant – even if true"... Yes. Yes it does. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SAMESURNAME still applies because using "Marcos" will lead to confusion whether a sentence is talking about Imelda not Ferdinand, Bongbong or Imee? Imeldific (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Imeldific, The article does not currently use 'Marcos', except where it is unambiguosly one or the other, it uses full name. In which specific instances at present do you believe there is any ambiguity? How is that ambiguity resolved by the gratuitous use of the mononym alone? Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete

Imelda Marcos was born in Manila but later moved to Tacloban prior to World War II after the death of her mother during her childhood. She later returned to Manila in 1950 to pursue a career as a singer and as a beauty queen. In 1954, she married Ferdinand Marcos, who became president of the Philippines on November 9, 1965 and later declared martial law on September 21, 1972. As First Lady, Marcos built developments in and around the metropolis of Manila while spending much of her time abroad on state visits and shopping sprees.

Which Marcos? This sentence makes it appear it is about her husband

Imelda Marcos served as First Lady after Ferdinand Marcos was elected on November 9, 1965 as the 10th President of the Philippines.

Violation of WP:SAMESURNAME. Imeldific (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Which Marcos was First Lady? Is there a side to Ferdinand we've never heard about? In some instances I suggest changing Marcos to she.Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Pincrete, you do that. I can't.Imeldific (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not? _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please, _Muffled , I think you know. Imeldific (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's done anyway (two 'she's) and makes for better flow IMO. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)−

@Pincrete: Can I suggest changing the 'First Lady' edit so as to have her name opening the section, rather than 'she'? I believe that's the MoS standard. Battery dying though! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Imeldific (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, agree better, done, losing 'his' surname. Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC) ps I've done a quick consistency check, 'Marcos' alone is now only used for her, he is always referred to as 'FM' or 'husband F' or similar.Pincrete (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete, the "Early life" section should only use Romuáldez not Marcos because she was not married to Ferdinand yet.Imeldific (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The 'born' name is in the lead, and if put instead in 'early life', it would be per "Thatcher was born Margaret Hilda Roberts on etc". IMO it would simply be confusing to use a different name, which is anyway used once only, therafter 'she'. Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete, Ryk72, Caeciliusinhorto, _Muffled, there is going to be a major change in the article, please do not revert. Imeldific (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@_Muffled Read this, it has to do with references/sourcing and copy editing/prose. Imeldific (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, prose and sources anyway. How'd you mean? _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@_Muffled. Problematic sources such as The Daily Mail and Rappler are removed and something else. Read the edit first before reverting. Imeldific (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Imeldfic: Well, good. The Daily Mail sucks wads. But what about it? Surely that FA filing was last month? _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@_Muffled. Just wait. Imeldific (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Imeldific, I can probably speak for the other editors when I say that I would NEVER revert without reading and checking. btw - Featured article candidates - 'Icon?' Half the present refs don't support this, (being at papal investiture?), and I doubt that anyone in their '80s (M or F) is still looked on as a 'pop and fashion icon' anywhere. Fortuna, I quite like the Daily Mail, well at least, my cat does. Pincrete (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Fish skins come to those wth taste! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete, you'd be surprised. Call it the 'Betty White effect.' She is still very much a 'pop and fashion icon' in Philippines at her age. Imeldific (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Then find RS that support that, present ones don't. Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete, they're going to be added. Tomorrow. _Muffled has a habit of reverting my edits. Imeldific (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No: I have a habit of reverting unsourced, trivial cruft which is based on original research, opinion, or rumour. I also have a habit of pointing out that edit-warring is not confined ti twenty-four hour periods  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pincrete, the user above, _Muffled, is going to trigger an WP:edit war if the new sources are added. Waiting for a day is just playing it safe. See you both tomorrow. Imeldific (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss the sources on the Talk Page- that's what it's for. And please remember to assume we are all here to build, rather than detract from, the project. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@_Muffled, patience is a virtue. Imeldific (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Not on Wikipedia. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@_Muffled, Sorry. Imeldific (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Imee and Bautista

I've just removed a large chunk of what appears to be WP:OR or off-topic about Imee Marcos. At the same time I wonder what Imelda's role was alleged to be (if any) in Bautista's attempted sale of the art-works?

Here is the removed Imee text, which contains some useful refs, but which don't support any connection to Imelda:

Early in 2013, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists listed her daughter Imee as one of the people involved in undisclosed offshore banking.^{[1][2][failed verification][3]} Imee had been helping her mother hide their wealth in the British Virgin Islands.^{[4][5][failed verification]}

Imelda allegedly ordered Vilma Bautista to sell the paintings in order to hide her family's tracks. There seemingly is no evidence but the paintings were once missing and the last owner was Imelda. Imeldific (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps locating a better source for Imelda's involvement would be a good solution ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with that! They are the best people in hiding their wealth. She is *not* involved. Winks. Imeldific (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

And lo! the drama unfolded

and 'twas undermighty Pincrete, Spacecowboy420, what's the current status of the article would you say... how beneficial the changes? I ask as per the suggestion of an administrator, who said: "In my opinion, one of the participants in Talk:Imelda Marcos#Request for comment might try to summarize what the consensus is so far. Imeldific should listen to the feedback. They should back off on the items where it is clear they won't get any support." So, a 'state of the nation' would be good. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a short 24 hour editing block, didn't speak quite loudly enough...

I'd suggest that Imeldific might want to listen a little more, and type a little less. Listening is the number one method for avoiding editing blocks or *IDEA!* article bans. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

But- blimey! with an article ban, what would he DO here...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely, but I live in hope that he might find something to edit that he doesn't have an emotional attachment to, and actually make some neutral/constructive edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The article is under this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imelda Marcos/archive3, please read the eligibility/rules before aking comments. The references are currently being revamped.Imeldific (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes... but you're not just formatting refernaces are you. See how many times Pincrete has caught you out, adding this, changing that... even up to your old monomystic tricks... _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

There was already a collaboration with Pincrete as of this. Imeldific (talk) 12

16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Imeldific, I read your edit summary and was about to say "fair enough" it's not content, it's just references...then I actually looked at the edits and saw that it was indeed content that had been changed. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete removed some paragraphs. There was already agreement with those. Imeldific (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420, I think it was quite a number of reverts too far. Imeldific, whilst making ref changes, you are creating cite errors and you continue to make 'sneaky' content changes. Is it notable that she is called the 'Steel butterfly', or is it only notable if we include an (unnecessary and WP:OR ) explanation? Is she 'Marcos' or 'Imelda Marcos' throughout, when no clarification is necessary? The sources explicitly stated that her role in both fashion and arts patronage were controversial, but you apparently don't want her reputation as a fashion icon tarnished. I still don't have any conviction that your edits are REALLY motivated by a wish to create a neutral article, though I agree that many of your recent ref changes were legit. ......... ps Imeldific, please don't name me so frequently 15 messages yesterday, 7 already today, I do have other pages and other things to do. Pincrete (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right, Pincrete. I must admit, I just looked at the previous history of the other editor and assumed that all the edits were of the same nature. Of course, please restore any of your content that I removed unintentionally. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420 and Pincrete: Thanks both, I think this is a good compromise, and a step forward- removed enough cruft and blurb without going too far back, whilst allowing for further filleting. FA here you come _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, I went back to the last version without errors, that means Imeldific will have to redo his ref changes, if he wishes. Fortuna, removing the fancruft is only stage 1 of giving a concise account of what has been written, I doubt if I'll be around to help there, (have you heard of the only here for the RfC get-out clause!)Pincrete (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ha! And since the RfC was rather a pig's ear from the beginning, fair play on your stamina for sticking it out that long! _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Under construction

The article is current under construction. Please don't revert.Imeldific (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Imelda mononym

From WP:OTHERNAMES

By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Likewise, even though Color's title omits the "u", Orange (colour)'s title does not.

All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term. Note that the exact capitalization of the article's title does not affect Wikipedia search, so it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links; see Naming conventions (capitalization).

Piped links are often used in article text to allow a subject with a lengthy article title to be referred to using a more concise term where this does not produce ambiguity.

The first name alone has been used by a variety of authors in WP:reliable sources:

• Ellison, Katherine (1988). Imelda, Steel Butterfly of the Philippines. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 161. ISBN 0-07-019335-5. Retrieved June 12, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

  • Imelda called "First and Foremost Lady," which was published in the 1976 issue. The correspondents' actual interview with Imelda appeared as a sidebar to the profile, with Smith's and Chesnoff's names under the questions and answers. Eight months later, Chesnoff rerisgned from his Newsweek job and embarked on a variety of writing projects, including two that had to do with Imelda and the Philippines.

• Garcia, Myles (2016). Thirty Years Later ... Catching Up with the Marcos-Era Crimes. Retrieved June 12, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

  • Imelda received very bad advice from her so-called "art advisers," Bellini and her main purveyor, Glecy Tantoco. Imelda has always been taken by "stylish" Italians,

• Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro (1969). The Untold Story of Imelda Marcos. Manila. Retrieved June 12, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

  • But perhaps the biggest blow to Imelda's carefullly shaped image came in the form of a book. The unauthorized bography (as opposed to Imelda's official biography, which was being kept under wraps until the opportune moment arrived for Imelda to announce her bid for the Presidency) told the true story of Imelda's youth.

• Pedrosa, Carmen Navarro (2013). Imelda Marcos: The Rise and Fall of One of the World's Most Powerful Women. Manila. Retrieved June 12, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

  • "Why not Imelda?" Ricardo mused. Imelda looked like a beauty queen, and had the charms and manners of one.

• Powers, Pheonix (2012). The Great Gold Swindle: Yamashita's Gold. p. 192. Retrieved June 12, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

  • Imelda was brought to trial to face a grand jury.

• Quah, John S. T. (2011). Curbing Corruption in Asian Countries: an Impossible Dream?. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 112. Retrieved June 12, 2016. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

  • when Imelda was in town, she used the National Bank like her own 'personal piggy bank.'

Imeldific (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Imeldific, are you seriously suggesting that a reader needs to be told that Imelda Marcos is sometimes called 'Imelda'? The purpose of 'other names' is (as given above), the reader might not understand Gdańsk=Danzig, might not understand that J.F.K. or L.B.J. = you know who. The pathetic attempt to get WP on 'first name terms' with Mrs Marcos has been solidly rejected in the RfC above. Previous attempts to have categories use the mononym have been rejected. Stop wasting everybody's time. I've tried to work with you and defended some edits of yours, but the continuous 'sneak-editing' and mis-application of P&G has long ago become tiresome. Your sources prove nothing, it isn't even an other name, and most of the sources use the full name on first use. Pincrete (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read Che, Iman, and Lula

From WP:reliable sources:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered

• This is a significant minority view. Imeldific (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, If RS could be found (not you synthing from primary sources), that among certain (local?) audiences she is/has been frequently referred to by the mononym, I would have no objection as part of a 'image' or similar section. These are not that, they are mainly using the full name on first use and the first name on subsequent uses, that is not a mononym. Shall I find 1000 instances of Blair being called Tony after first use? Michelle Obama being called Michelle after first use? You are digging a hole for yourself as a result of this obsession that a significant percentage of the world know her by first name. They don't, they didn't even when she was 20* more famous than she is now and inclusion in the lead is simply unnecessary, it clarifies nothing. Her political role and extravagant use of what was probably other people's money is a great deal more notable than a few uses of the first name. Pincrete (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael Jackson was constantly referred to as "the king of pop" and I'm confident there are plenty of sources to support that name. Should we remove all instances of his name from all articles, and replace them with "the king of pop" ? It's fucking simple: When someone is known only by a mononym, and their full name would cause confusion, we use their mononym. For example, I guess that most people are unaware that Ronaldo de Assis Moreira is Ronaldinho so we use the monomym. We don't use Imelda Romuáldez Marcos for the article, we use Imelda Marcos because it causes the least confusion. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of first name after introduction with full name is not using a mononym, it is a standard courtesy, especially for women. Shall we also bother to explain that she is sometimes called Mrs Marcos? Or is the use so obvious as being insulting to the reader? Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest using "Marcos" to describe her for the majority of the article, with an occasional use of "Imelda Marcos" on sentences that also refer to her husband. The Denis Thatcher article is a pretty good example of how to avoid naming confusion in a similar situation. There is of course no need at all to explain that someone called Imelda Marcos is also known as Imelda. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420, explaining 'sometimes called Imelda' is what the current disagreement is about. The article at present mostly uses both names for her to avoid the inherent confusion. I don't object to that. I think use of forename throughout for her is now settled against such use. Pincrete (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As it should be. What are the feelings about changing some of the instances of "Imelda Marcos" to just "Marcos", in situations that it wouldn't cause confusion with her husband? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I seem to remember doing exactly that myself (here, possibly) but of course that was naused up by obsessive fanboyism. It's definitely the way forward though. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna, yes you did change and yes it was slyly changed back. I don't feel strongly either way about use of both names or surname only for her. Surname is standard, but I can see the argument for using both names most of the time. I only object to wasting time with spurious, synth-ed arguments and 'sneak edits'. Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't agree with the last name only because it is ambiguous and confusing. Imeldific (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, you don't disagree with using the full name? Imeldific (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You ask the question after making the edit, even though you knew there are objectors, and after inserting a ridiculous, completely unsourced footnote that 'Imelda was universally known by her first name'. MOS is quite explicit, it is good enough for Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton and 1000s of others.Pincrete (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

She was. Imeldific (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So you say (with tedious repetition). What does it mean? Her friends called her this? Even if it were true that the general (non-local) public called her this (which it clearly isn't), that does not override MOS on the subject of a noted political figure. We all know who Elvis, Oprah etc. are, but they are not mononyms and the informal use of their first name is obvious. It is a synthed, pointless, attempt to imply that the majority of the world and WP is/was on a first name familiarity with her. They weren't and aren't and no sources say they were. Attempting to get this article up to FA is absolutely pointless until this basic matter is settled. She gets the same treatment as any other political figure/ political wife. Pincrete (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact, Oprah and Elvis are so widely used to refer to Winfrey and Presley respectively that both of them redirect as the clear primary topic for those names, and yet in neither of their articles does the lead say "also known as Oprah" or "also known as Elvis". Even if we accepted that Marcos is as widely known as "Imelda" as Presley was as "Elvis" (which it seems that most editors do not, and I cannot see that any evidence has actually been put forward to support such a claim), his article is, I would suggest, a sensible precedent on how to handle such things. Note that in Wikipedia's voice, Presley is referred to as "Presley" throughout, except in the section on early life in order to avoid confusion with other members of his family; meanwhile direct quotes frequently use "Elvis".

Imeldific: I suggest that you stop insisting that Marcos be referred to as "Imelda" against consensus on this talkpage, and instead concentrate on the actionable comments that have been given on the FAC page. I know that not all of my comments have yet been addressed. (I would also note that this fighting over whether or not Imelda Marcos should be referred to as "Imelda", and the repeated reinsertion of this against the talk-page consensus, could be interpreted as being in breach of criterion 1e of the featured article criteria. Marcos is the kind of subject that we need more featured articles on, and it would be a shame if the nomination failed for entirely avoidable reasons). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto, thankyou for an excellent summary. The only point I would wish to add is that if RS from independent sources say that among particular 'audiences' she was widely referred to by first name, that would warrant inclusion in the body, in an 'image' or similar section, including identifying who those 'audiences' were and when this was. The objection is to treating a 'fan base', as a universal truth. Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

3O Response: A request for a third opinion was posted regarding the possible use of a mononym in the lede section of this article. I'm declining the request for third opinion for two reasons: there is an ongoing RfC, which is a dispute resolution mechanism that I think would trump the informal advice of a third opinion, and there are more than two editors with substantive contributions to the discussion. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 18:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. Yet another attempt by Imeldific to push his minority point of view. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Fortuna, plus DRN,(wisely withdrawn by nom.). Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose use of mononym. This is the same argument put forth in the (withdrawn) requested move discussion from last year by the same user, and it's prompting the same response. WP:NOPONY. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.