Talk:Ferdinand Marcos
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives:
Contents |
[edit] Second Dictatorship?
Never heard of this. Is this for real? Shrumster 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find any scholarly or news related references to Marcos/2nd Dictatorship & Aguinaldo/1st Dictatorship and it doesn't show up on [National Historical Institute] or particularly Philippine Presidency Project (although of debatable authority, see [1] and [2]). All the web references appear to be derived from wikipedia.The first instance of this terminology on wp appears to go back to this 2005 edit. Hmmm... 71.146.132.144 07:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Second Dictatorship - there is no such thing or terminology in Philippine history.. Marcos regime is either a "constitutional authoritarianism" (if you are Marcos loyalist or sympathizer) or simply a "dictatorship" (if you are against the Marcoses).
It is also wrong to say that Marcos is the Second Dictator because there were three Presidents before him who were also considered as dictators or authoritarian leaders.
1. President Emilio Aguinaldo, who assumed the title of "Dictator" for a brief period of time under a Dictatorial Government;
2. Manuel Quezon - Quezon controlled the legislature and politicians became subservient to him :through mollification, coalition, and fusion. According to Teodoro Agoncillo: "By 1941, Quezon had eliminated all elite opposition within and without the Nacionalista Party... 'Opposition parties and individual liberties' were two democratic fetishes that must be discarded, he intoned."[1] The American High Commissioner during that time, Francis Sayre, described Quezon's actions as a "trend toward totalitarianism and an exceeding danger to democracy."
With the legislature under his control, Quezon was able to extend his term from a one six-year term to a two eight-year term through constitutional amendments in 1940.
Maybe, Marcos got his idea of dictatorship or authoritarianism from Quezon..
3. Jose P. Laurel - The 1943 de facto Constitution of the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Republic provided the President vast powers, making him a constitutional dictator Unfortunately or fortunately, Laurel was not able to exercise his power as President because of Japanese interference..
4. Corazon Aquino was also described as a dictator (of course, by the Marcos loyalists) when she abolished the Batasang Pambansa and assumed full legislative power from 1986-1987 by virtue of the 1986 Freedom Constitution. Angeles624 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reference
- ^ Teodoro Agoncillo. History of the Filipino People, p. 368
-
- Hector de Leon's Constitution book, the first textbook of all poli-sci noobs in the Phils., clearly says a part of Aguinaldo's presidency is the "First Dictatorship," (with the other part as the "First Revolutionary Period," the second one Cory's early days in office.) hence Marcos's period from the declaration of martial law up to his inauguration after the 1981 election is the second dictatorship, fellowed by the 4th republic. --Howard the Duck 06:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Could credible wikipedia articles be written about a First Philippine Dictatorship and Second Philippine Dictatorship? The lack of even a modicum of published scholarly discourse (positive or negative) referencing this terminology indicates it may be non-mainstream. See WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. 71.146.144.24 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- We have First Philippine Republic and History of the Philippines (1965-1986), both valid and mainstream events in Philippine history. --Howard the Duck 06:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Could credible wikipedia articles be written about a First Philippine Dictatorship and Second Philippine Dictatorship? The lack of even a modicum of published scholarly discourse (positive or negative) referencing this terminology indicates it may be non-mainstream. See WP:RS, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:FRINGE. 71.146.144.24 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
With due respect, Hector de Leon never used the terms First Dictatorship and Second Dictatorship in his book, Textbook on Philippine Constitution. Never! The following are what De Leon really wrote in his book:
Governments during the revolutionary era
The Dictatorial Government - Following the outbreak of the Spanish-American war on April 25, 1898, Gen. Aguinaldo, in view of the chaotic conditions in the country, established the Dictatorial Government on May 23, 1898....(Hector de Leon. Textbook on Philippine Constitution, Manila: Rex Bookstore, 1999, p. 13.)
The Previous Philippine Republics
(2) The First Republic was established on January 23, 1899 under the Malolos Constitution; the Second, on October 14, 1943 under the Japanese-sponsored Constitution, and the Third, on July 4, 1946 under the 1935 Constitution. President ferdinand E. Marcos, in his inaugural address on June 30, 1981, proclaimed the birth of the Fourth Philippine Republic under the 1973 Constitution, as amended in a plebiscite on April 7, 1981, installed a modified parliamentary system of government, thus making him its first President. All in all, there were nine Presidents in the previous three republics, including President Marcos in his two terms in the Third Republic.(Ibid., p. 16)
[footnote no. 30: The last 14-year rule of President Marcos from the declaration of martial law on September 21, 1972 until his overthrow on February 25, 1986 by the so-called "people power revolution," was generally described as dictatorial or authoritarian. (ibid)]
I've done numerous research on the Marcoses for my MA and read a lot of books (pro and anti) about the Marcos Administration. None of these books have ever used the term "Second Dictatorship."
Books on Political Law by Justice Isagani Cruz and Sen. Miriam Santiago never used the term "Second Dictatorship to cover the period 1972-1886 of the Marcos regime.
History books (especially by Sonia Zaide) never used the term "Second Dictatorship)
Many students (especially in HS) rely on Wikipedia as one of their sources of information for their assignments in Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies). We must not mislead them by using terms such as "First Dictatorship" or "Second Dictatorship," which are not accepted by Filipino historians and political scientists. Angeles624 07:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- In the course of Philippine history, there have been two dictatorial governments: Aguinaldo's (first) and Marcos' (second). That is pretty straightforward. I never said HdL called Marcos' administration from 1969-1981 as "Second Dictatorship", I said HdL described two dictatorial governments in Philippine history.
- And as much as possible, I avoid to use Zaide's books (both father and daughter), unless its about Rizal. --Howard the Duck 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- (Interestingly, a discussion like this happened at Talk:President of the Philippines. --Howard the Duck 12:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
- I agree that there have been two or three dictatorial governments: Aguinaldo's (under a Dictatorial Government); Laurel's Constitutional Dictatorship during the Second Republic; and Marcos' (from 1972-1986). But the term "President of the Second Dictatorship" is totally unacceptable. I reiterate, there is no such thing as "Second Dictatorship" in Philippine political history.
- Re: Zaides' books on Philippine history: I also avoid using Gregorio and Sonia Zaide's books because of their unreliable methods in historiography and subjectivity.
- I really enjoyed this friendly discussion about the Marcos Administration. Thanks =)Angeles624 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Martial Law Period.. most history books and books on Politics and Governance used this term to encompass the events from 1972-1981 (or up to 1986).
-
-
-
- As to Laurel, there is no dispute that he was President of the Second Philippine Republic. What I am pointing out is: that his government was described as a constitutional dictatorship.
-
-
-
- Just like Marcos, Marcos was President of the Third and Fourth Republics and from 1972 until his downfall in 1986, his government was described as dictatorial or authoritarian. He never assumed the title "Dictator" (unlike Aguinaldo) and the government is still republican (unlike Aguinaldo's Dictatorial Government). The term "dictator" and dictatorship" were used to describe the government of President Marcos from 1972-1986. It is an adjective, not a noun.
-
-
-
- Aguinaldo on the other hand, assumed the title "Dictator" and formed a "Dictatorial Government." It is not a mere description or adjective. Angeles624 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- We should call it simply a "Dictatorial Government" because it was the official name of Aguinaldo's government from May 24 - June 23, 1898.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Aguinaldo was: Dictator of the Dictatorial Government (May 24 - June 23, 1898)."Dictator", in this case, is an actual title he assumed as head of the government. ; President of the Revolutionary Government (June 23, 1898 - January 23, 1899) and President of the First Philippine Republic (January 23, 1899-March 23, 1901).
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (Please, in replying, increase the number of colons to the left so we'd have a natural flow, and always sign your posts with four tildes.)
- So in other words, Aguinaldo wasn't a president from May 24-June 23 (since he used the term "Dictator"), which makes the dictatorial government not a part of the presidential system? --Howard the Duck 08:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Not exactly, the Dictatorial Government laid the foundation for the establishment of a republican-presidential system the following year. It was the nucleus of the First Philippine Republic. Angeles624 08:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I need concrete answers so I can sort out the mess; Julius Caesar was never an emperor but he laid the groundwork of the Roman Empire. Was Aguinaldo similar? And can't we think of another term besides Martial Law, it doesn't sound too scholarly, since as the discussion now turns out, there were two dictators, one de jure and one de facto; I won't even consider Laurel as a dictator. --Howard the Duck 09:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
<--- reset indent--->
-
- Second dictatorship is quite controversial, I wonder why Manolo Quezon used it too. President of New Society? So would Ramos be the President of Philippines 2000? and GMA President of the Strong Republic? These were just rallying soundbites of their administration. Every "stage" or "period" of a republic is determined by the constitution in operation. From the period since he declared martial law and inaugurated the Fourth Republic, Marcos operated under the powers granted to him by the 1935 Constitution - that is the right to declare martial law, and general orders no. 1. Being the witty lawyer that he is, every decree he issues he always invokes, Proclamation 1081 and General Order No. 1, always pointing out that his powers were derived from the constitution, even most of it were suspended by an authority or a power it has also granted to the president. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup/POV Issues
This article screams "I need cleanup!" Very little has been wikified, and the article rambles on and on and has unnecessary, overly descriptive lists. Just read the lead-in section and you'll see why this article needs to be NPOV'ed! -- Bill (who is cool!) 22:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Egads... you're right. This article is so bad that it's embarrassing. :( I'm seriously tempted to give it a total overhaul like what I did to History of the Philippines. TheCoffee 01:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, Marcos is great, the most brilliant Filipino the Asian race ever produced and a great Filipino GIFTED, psychic. So, it is very sad if this article will be absent in wiki. I added the most important 7 7 7 launching of his 7 books and the Center.
--Florentino floro 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Your addition was nonsensical and undersourced. I deleted it.
69.203.74.32 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
PEDRO -- reverting that edit to re-include that nonsense content makes this article worse, if that is even possible. I request that you reconsider protecting a POV, ridiculous addition to an already vastly flawed article.
69.203.74.32 12:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The text is of poor quality, however does have two citations. I have no issue with you undoing my reversions and removing it. However please use an edit summary. By simply blanking a section and not noting why you did it will likely attract recent change patrollers, who will revert on sight. Pedro | Chat 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg
Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg
Image:Ninoy assassination.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legacy Section - mistranslation
Second paragraph, 1st line:
The word "amo" does not translate into "godfather". Rather, it should be translated into "boss". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.13.218 (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC) ferdinad marcos us a president] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.170.110 (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Word should be apo, not amo and it doesn't mean "grandchild". — • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Feedback 04:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Marcos Flees!.jpg
Image:Marcos Flees!.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Picture in question has a more improved fair use rationale as of 15:57, March 14, 2008 (PST). Hence, the articles (including this one) with the said picture will not be affected by its supposed deletion on Saturday, March 15, 2008. -iaNLOPEZ1115 · TaLKBaCK · Vandalize it 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)