Talk:Imelda Marcos#RFC billionaire

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)

:Vice has a piece [https://www.vice.com/en/article/59n8ab/what-ever-happened-imelda-marcos-3000-pairs-shoes-philippines here] (with photos!) Howard the Duck (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

:A large part of the collection is on display at the Presidential Palace in Manila. Saw it myself. Davidkt (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738425667}}

It's been three years since the last discussion was held in regards to the infobox image. As I believed so back then, the current image (which was reached by consensus albeit) is unflattering and as one user noted above, it's a bit creepy. I created a cropped close up so you can see what I'm talking about. Her eyes are half-open, quality isn't the best and if this is truly the 'best' picture that captures what she's known for (as stated in the last discussion three years ago in terms of her outfits), then perhaps it's best to asses an infobox image based on quality over what she's 'known' for. If this is the best picture that shows her during her 'comeback' (as stated in last discussion), then once again, I must emphasize the quality of the picture (awkward lighting, unflattering eye pose, not the best in quality). These are the current images at commons that are best suited for an infobox image. As noted in other talk page discussions, when the subject of an article passes away, their infobox image is also replaced with a black and white picture or of one that captures them in their 'prime' so to speak. Although (as of now) Marcos is still alive, I feel that Option B is in better quality than the current picture, shows her as her time as First Lady (much like other first lady articles) and will depict her in her prime when she passes away (not a huge factor now, but worth thinking about). Pinging previous contributors to the discussion three years ago for good measure: {{ping|Chieharumachi}}, {{ping|Crisantom}}, {{ping|Object404}}, {{ping|Unilimited247}}, {{ping|Lochglasgowstrathyre}} TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

:I see the picture changed! Well done! Emmentalist (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

{{Gallery

|title = Cast your !vote

| File:Imelda Romualdez Marcos 2.jpg

|Option A (current infobox image)

|File:Imelda Marcos of the Philippines on January 18, 1973 (cropped).jpg

| Option B (preferred)

|File:Imelda Marcos 1980s.jpg

|Option C

|File:Imelda Marcos (1984).jpg

|Option D

|File:Imelda Marcos 1969.jpg

|Option E (former infobox image)

|File:Imelda Marcos 1966.jpg

|Option F

|File:Imelda Marcos-1966.jpg

|Option G

|File:Imelda Marcos Nixon Visit.png

|Option H

|File:Imelda Marcos at the Bataan Death March Memorial Plaque (cropped).jpg

|Option I

|File:Imelda Romualdez Marcos 2 (cropped).jpg

|Option J (cropped close-up of current infobox image)

}}

• Option B or E As stated above, these two images are in better quality than the current image and best depicts Marcos in her prime as First Lady. If I had to pick between the two, Option B is far better. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• I think the relevant policy is WP:BLPIMAGE. And I don't see anything there that invalidates the current image and we have no obligation to choose an image that presents a subject in the best light. It is also a long-standing practice that we use contemporary photos (and not decades-old photos) of subjects that are still alive so I think almost all other options wouldn't normally be chosen. So I prefer that we stick with the status quo unless we actually have a "better" contemporary photo. —seav (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• :While I agree that there's slim pickins currently available, how is the (among other users's opinions including my own) unflattering picture of her with her eyes half-open any better from the ones in which is somewhat more flattering (in terms of less awkward posing). I understand that this one may be the only recent image we have, but given the decades-old pictures that show her in a more less awkward fashion, surely there has to be an exception aside from dates. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• :It fails recognisability. Emmentalist (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Seav}} & {{ping|Thesavagenorwegian}} Though it might be early, there's a slight consensus against using Option A due to the poor quality of it. Seeing as how Options B, E and D have been thrown around as suitable replacements, is there a non-Option A image you two believe works best? Trying to see what the consensus is for a replacement photo. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• ::Still leaning, not strongly, towards A. If consensus is against, I think D is probably best. TheSavageNorwegian 22:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Unfortunately, A is best until we get a better recent photo, but once she has died I am 100% on board with one of the more flattering and emblematic images. TheSavageNorwegian 21:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• I don't like her. But I consider A and J gratuitously unflattering. We wouldn't use those for any honest person while there are better pictures available; and I don't think WIkipedia should be influenced in this decision by her history as an embezzler. Maproom (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• :Which of the options (slim pickins it seems) would you prefer to substitute A? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• :: B, if I have to choose. Maproom (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• Anything but A, disregarding the "avoid flattereing the subject" issue, A is a terrible, unclear, photo. The coloured ones are far from perfect, but one of those or a B & W one identify the subject better (B is probably best of the B & W ones)Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• B, then E. D obscures too much of her face. Absolutely not A, which as mentioned by other editors is unflattering to the point of unusability. — Goszei (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• D looks straightforward and neutral. The mouth position looks strange in B, like she's in the middle of saying something. E looks old and low-quality. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• D, as per BarrelProof. Shame no shoes, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot)Anything but A. Wikipedia policy on images requires recognisability. This picture is of poor quality and fails that test. In the context of the article, which does not look entirely free of negative point of view itself, the image may not be neutral re W:NPOV. In my view, D is a clear and sharp image presenting the subject as most people would recognise her. I vote D, but wouldn't die in a ditch over it. Emmentalist (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• D, then once she dies, B or E. As long as the subject is living, we should get at least the best photo of her that is recent enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know who wrote this article, because they are anonymous, as always,

but it starts out with every negative thing about her you can think of. (This happens all the time in Wikipedia articles about current or former politicians whom the writers don’t like.)

No wonder I don’t give any money to Wikipedia, because I don’t support this kind of biased—derogatory

commentary right off the bat, if the writer even knows the expression. 2601:1C2:C184:53B0:DCD3:A5BC:A207:3C37 (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia articles are not written by just one person. The degree of anonymity adopted by registered users varies. Perhaps you could list here all the "negative things" that appear at the start of the article, which you believe are not justified, and they can be discussed? Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise the salient points of the entire article, whether positive or negative, "right off the bat" in the opening section. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Can someone edit the information box where it lists the four children of Imelda Marcos and mentions (adopted) at the last one? It is rather odd to include this distinction there instead of in the "personal life" section where it belongs. 2001:1C01:4216:A400:44E9:CE0C:A226:AB60 (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:Neither Template:Infobox officeholder nor Template:Infobox person give any advice, so yes I think that could be removed. But there is no "Personal life" section, where each of the children might be named and linked? And Aimee Marcos is not mentioned anywhere outside the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::I meant the infobox. Could the (adopted) be removed? Just looks so odd to put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:4216:A400:44E9:CE0C:A226:AB60 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I know you meant that, thanks. I'm saying there's currently nowhere else to put it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

In the "Portrayals in news and art" section, adding the 1988 Big Audio Dynamite song "2000 Shoes" would be appropriate as it's entirely about Imelda. Lyrics here - https://genius.com/Big-audio-dynamite-2000-shoes-lyrics Davidkt (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)