Template:Did you know nominations/Marcos jewels

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hdolf (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Marcos jewels

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Marcos jewels recovered by the Philippine government from the Marcos Family are sorted into three collections, based on how and where they were recovered? “There are three collections, each boasting a dazzling array of different jewels and precious stones.” ; “the value of all three collections now amounts to a conservative estimate of at least P1 billion.”;both citations provide more context.
  • ALT1:... that the Marcos jewels recovered by the Philippine government from the Marcos family in 1986 had been appraised as valuing about ₱1 Billion? “the value of all three collections now amounts to a conservative estimate of at least P1 billion.”; citation provides more context.
  • ALT2:... that the Marcos jewels recovered from the Marcos Family were defined by Philippine courts as “ill-gotten wealth” because they were "manifestly out of proportion to the salaries of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos? ”The SC First Division denied the petition for certiorari filed by Marcos and her daughter Irene Marcos-Araneta which sought the reversal of the Sandiganbayan's January 2014 decision declaring the jewelry collection as ill-gotten wealth.”(more context in article); decision cited is .

• Reviewed: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dust_(ballet)
• Comment: The original author is a colleague who taught me how to edit, and encouraged me to expand the page.

Created/expanded by Chieharumachi (talk) and Alternativity (talk). Nominated by Chieharumachi (talk) at 09:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I prefer ALT1 and ALT2. ALT0 is not as interesting without further context, but ALT2 is very interesting, and so is ALT1. epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi epicgenius, I had not earlier realized how close we are to August 21, which is Ninoy Aquino Day in the Philippines. I was wondering if it's too late to add this to the requested articles for that specific occasion? (Also, I'm not sure how to nominate it; any tips?) If it is too late, well, that's okay too. Oh and also, if it's a matter now of selecting between the two alternates, may I cast my vote for Alt 2 over Alt 1? (I ordered them by the sequence I thought of them, not by order of preference.) Anyway. Whatever happens, thank you so much! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chieharumachi: No problem. Do you want this nomination to run specifically on August 21? This is completely possible. If you'd rather have ALT2 run instead of the other hooks, that is also fine with me. epicgenius (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:, yes on August 21 please. And Yes on Alt 2. :D Thank you so much! - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Note to promoter: Please have ALT2 run on August 21. epicgenius (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I moved the nom to the special occasions area for August 21. But ALT2 is not following the source. If it did, it would read:
• ALT2a: ... that the Marcos jewels recovered from the Marcos family were defined by Philippine courts as "ill-gotten wealth" because they were "manifestly out of proportion to the salary" of Ferdinand Marcos?
• IMO this hook is repeating "Marcos" too many times. Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• ALT2b: ... that the Marcos jewels were defined by Philippine courts as "ill-gotten wealth" because they were "manifestly out of proportion to the salary" of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos?
• Would this revision be better? I think it's critical to mention both Ferdinand and Imelda, since they did, after all, both get salaries.

• @Yoninah and Chieharumachi: Hmm, this is something I must've overlooked. I would agree with ALT2a. The second source for ALT2 says: "In the Swiss Deposits Decision, the Court ruled that petitioner Republic was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials". This likely refers to both Ferdinand and Imelda, but it doesn't refer to the jewels themselves. epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

*@Epicgenius: Oh, that's because the second source is the 2012 decision cited by the 2014 decision cited in the first source (a 2020 news article about the 2020 supreme court decision upholding the 2014 decision). The 2020 Supreme Court decision upholding the 2014 decision reiterates the language of the 2012 decision, but I don't have the original 2020 supreme court or 2014 graft court decisions on me right now... I guess I'd be fine with Alt1 if that's the case? - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, we need to finish up here so we can promote it to Prep 4 on time. Yoninah (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Chieharumachi and Yoninah: Sorry about the delay, I didn't see this. Any one of ALT1, ALT2a, or ALT2b is good to go. epicgenius (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: but as I mentioned above, ALT2b is not in the source, so I would strike that. If the nominator thinks its "critical" to say both their names, then he should write a different hook. Meanwhile, ALT2a mentions "Marcos" three times. I've unstruck ALT1 and added a link. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah, oh yeah, I forgot. In that case, I would approve ALT1 or ALT2a, but not ALT2b, since ALT2b isn't in the source. epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: well, even ALT1 is repetitively worded. I suggest this rewording:
• ALT1a: ... that the jewelry collections recovered by the Philippine government from the Marcos family in 1986 have been appraised at ₱1 billion? Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah, that works, too. epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Returned from prep. The article appears to have further unresolved issues, among them several bald URLs. I asked at WT:DYK#Prep 4:Philippine pesos if a US dollar equivalent could be added for the Philippine pesos figure, and received this reply:
• The sources cited for the billion figure (8 and 9), as far as I can tell, give the valuations in millions of American dollars and UK pounds, at least as of February 2016 when the billion figure was mentioned; the "billion pesos" seems to be from source 7, which needs to cited with that text if the number is to be used (unless the Telegraph source, which I can't access beyond the lede, also gives the billion figure). The hook should perhaps specify the 2016 appraisal, as it's very different from the 1986 date given in the hook. Also, if this nom isn't to be pulled, the bare URL source 2 needs to be filled out per DYK rules. I also have a big question: were the jewels ever auctioned? Why doesn't the article give the current status on the jewels? It's been over four years since the valuation, and over three years since the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan decision confiscating the jewels. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I am also not in a hurry to promote this for August 21, which is a holiday unrelated to the Marcos family. Let's work out the issues calmly, perhaps get a better hook, and then go to the main page. Yoninah (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've filled in the bare references, and addressed some concerns raised in the "auctions section," but don't know enough about exchange rates to do anything about that immediately. I shall try to study how. Anything else I should be trying to fix? I'm not sure I agree with August 21 being unrelated to the Marcos family, but that's beside the point, I suppose. I don't want to rush this nomination either, if the community doesn't feel it's ready by then. Part of the reason I wanted it to get nominated is that I wanted to confirm its quality, and putting it through these rigours is one way to do so. So thank you! - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oh. I saw at WT:DYK#Prep 4:Philippine pesos that you said "unrelated to the Marcos jewels" (as opposed to "unrelated to the Marcos family"), Yoninah. I see your point now. Thanks.

Would it be better if Alt1 were rephrased this way: "... that the jewelry collections recovered by the Philippine government from the Marcos family in 1986 were appraised at ₱1 billion in 2016?"

@Chieharumachi, Yoninah, and BlueMoonset: I'm wary of approving the nomination too hastily, but in my opinion, this works. Not sure if we need a USD/EUR/GBP/whatever other currency conversion. epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: what I don't like about ALT1 is the ₱1 billion figure. It means nothing to me, as I think in American dollars. Even if you told me it was the equivalent of half a billion US dollars, I think the hook could be written in a much more hooky way. I will take another look at the article to suggest something. Yoninah (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I just checked the sources, they convert the amount to "approximately USD21 Million." Maybe not quite as interesting, I agree.- Chieharumachi (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that ousted Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda left 400 pieces of unlawfully-acquired jewelry in their palace and were caught smuggling out another $5-$10 million worth of gems? Yoninah (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Sounds great to me. - Chieharumachi (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging @Epicgenius: re ALT3. Yoninah (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• ALT3 looks fine to me. epicgenius (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

References