Talk:Rodrigo Duterte/Archive 2

Death squads
The third paragraph in the lead section is: "Duterte's political success has been aided by his vocal support for the extrajudicial killing of drug users and criminals. Nicknamed "The Punisher" by Time, he has been tied to an alleged vigilante group called the Davao Death Squad by human rights organizations. Duterte has drawn criticism from various sources, particularly the press and the Philippine National Police leadership in the Aquino government, which contest the effectiveness of his policies."


 * Nicknamed "The Punisher" by Time - The "nickname" used by one source does not belong in the lead, unless it has seen wider use.
 * he has been tied to an alleged vigilante group called the Davao Death Squad by human rights organizations. - This is problematic for several reasons. The ref is merely a human rights group repeating Duterte's own statements linking himself to the killings: "Duterte publicly admitted his direct links to the Davao death squad during a May 24 live broadcast of his weekly television talk show. “Am I the death squad? True. That is true,” Duterte said on-air while discussing his accomplishments as Davao’s chief executive. He then pledged that if he became president of the Philippines he would execute 100,000 more criminals and dump their bodies in Manila Bay. Duterte’s comments echoed those he made on May 15, which asserted the summary killing of suspected criminals as a key plank to his approach to public security: “We’re the ninth safest city. How do you think I did it? How did I reach that title among the world’s safest cities? Kill them all [criminals].”" The article text wrongly implies that it is only or mainly "human rights organisations" that link him (not supported by the ref). Also, many/most sources, including the one linked, refer to "death squads", not "Death Squad".
 * Duterte has drawn criticism from various sources, particularly the press and the Philippine National Police leadership in the Aquino government, which contest the effectiveness of his policies. - The ref states nothing about "the press" or "various sources", or "his policies".

I suggest replacing the paragraph with the following, which is accurately sourced, and hopefully clearer: "Duterte's political success has been aided by his vocal support for the extrajudicial killing of drug users and criminals. Human rights groups have documented over 1,400 killings allegedly by vigilante groups occurring in Davao between 1998 and May 2016; the victims were mainly drug users, petty criminals and street children." zzz (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Repost from my warning notice on your talk page: It's enough that the "perceived" policies and "alleged" extrajudicial killings are mentioned in the lead with a link to Davao Death Squad allegedly responsible for those crime figures, and a section below dedicated for it. If and when any of these have been proven in any court and you should know this, whether the DOJ, CHR, Ombudsman, or even the Senate, you can proceed to highlight the whole case. But in the spirit of fairness and neutrality, there's really nothing to them but just accusations and allegations at this point. And i repeat, At this point. Hence theres no reason to highlight the case as if it was already proven and accepted facts about the person. See WP policies on biographies of living persons and WP:BLPCRIME. Note: Though seemingly vocal for EJKs, he has also retracted those statements1 2 and repeatedly denied his involvement in the death squads. Reuters source 1 2.--RioHondo (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * you haven't addressed any of the points I raised. I am not sure what your objection to the proposed change is. Are you suggesting that the widely reported extrajudicial killings may have not occurred? My proposed version, which deals with the problems I mentioned above, does not allege or imply Duterte's involvement any more than the current version does. zzz (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I object the POV-laden edits. And yes it does, your version purposely omits the fact that he was being "allegedly" linked to the Davao Death Squad which carried out those killings. It goes from saying Duterte supports extrajudicial killings to laying down the number of deaths by vigilante groups in Davao as if to suggest Duterte supports the vigilante group. The current version is more clear and neutral as it acknowledges the killings by "Davao Death Squad" but does not purposely attributes them to the person as fact, but as allegation which is what the sources all say. There is no conviction yet.--RioHondo (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The current version does not say that "he was being allegedly linked to the Davao Death Squad which carried out those killings". It says "he has been tied to an alleged vigilante group". This is unclear. It could be taken (literally) to be implying that the vigilantes may not exist (or that the "Davao Death Squad" may not be a vigilante death squad); however it does allege his direct involvement in the killings. My proposed version instead avoids the question of his direct involvement. zzz (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what you have the link to Davao Death Squad for, and the whole paragraph touches on the issue of extrajudicial killings of criminals which is clear from the very first line. Lets not be repetitive. Go ahead and improve the Davao Death Squad article and lay down all the accussations there and status of the case.--RioHondo (talk)
 * "That's what you have the link to Davao Death Squad for"? What are you replying to? zzz (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant that as a reply to your statement saying the whole sentence is unclear. Thats why we have wikilinks so that we dont have to veer away from the topic which is to introduce the person in the lead fairly, briefly and in a neutral manner. By the way, your version that goes from Duterte's vocal support for extrajudicial killings to saying "over 1,400 killings allegedly by vigilante groups occurring in Davao between 1998 and May 2016", it could also suggest that the killings may or may not have been carried out by the vigilante groups, which could then mean if it's not them, who else but Duterte, who was very vocal about it, did it. That's certainly how it all sounds to me, just like your past edits here that tried to remove anything positive about the person and replace it with tons of details relating solely to the allegations of extrajudicial killings which by the way borders on WP:COATRACK, a clear violation of fundamental WP policies and principles.--RioHondo (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying, but please either address the objections I raised to the current lead, or suggest improvements to the proposed version, rather than making vague allegations about my edits. zzz (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your September 14 mass deletion of sourced contributions and replacement with biased entries, it's all recorded in the page history. Not notable being a lawyer, removing a whole section of accomplishments as mayor, non-awards, and advocacy, etc. I reverted them September 15th and immediately sent you a warning on your talk page. Don't tell me they were poorly written or sourced cos you could have improved their wording or references if you really want to using google search. The problem here is you cherry pick and rely on very few sources, mostly those that are critical of the president that generates the most buzz in your side of the world, which ultimately affects the neutrality and balance of this biography. Your proposed revision itself depends on just 1 source. I would suggest reading up on other news sources and learn how to edit BLPs in a balanced, non-partisan manner following WP:BLPSTYLE.

As for changes in the lead, i can support the revision and addition of a few details, but not an entire paragraph of allegations that you tried to replace it with the last time. Again, there's the Davao Death Squad article for that which has to be mentioned and linked for the readers to understand more about the allegations being made without having to be overly long and giving excessive focus on the crime he is being accused of (WP:COATRACK). These aren't my contributions anyway. In fact i only do maintenance on this article and I have not written anything here yet. But it definitely would require more than 1 source, a counter claim to maintain the balance and neutrality of this BLP. Can you do that?--RioHondo (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to complain about my editing, then you need to file a complaint with administrators - however, note that if you do that rather than just casting aspersions here, your editing will also be examined (but of course you already know that ...) I repeat, the third paragraph of the lead is already about the killings. If there are no objections to the proposed edit, then I will restore it. zzz (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"DU30"
The article should document his nickname "DU30" (esp. as he keeps wearing shirts with that printed on it) and what it means. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Duterte and Overseas Filipino Workers
Duterte is helping repatriate Overseas Filipino Workers stranded in Saudi Arabia after they've lost their jobs due to a slowing economy. According to this source, already 128 OFWs have been repatriated among a total of 9,000 who have been affected by the slowing economy. I think it's notable enough to mention but would like to know your thoughts. --Flycatchr 20:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing mention of killings
Vigilante killings that occured as Mayor of Davao should be in the Mayor of Davao section. Killings that occured as part of the anti-drug campaign as president should be described in that section. Removing all mention of killings to a "Controversies" section at the end of the article is not how Wikipedia articles are written. zzz (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whats the subsection preceding it Shhhww?? Crime rate in Davao that discusses the killings, murder, even rape, etc. These are official information which belongs to the section on being Mayor. The allegations do not, and are more appropriate in the controversy section.--RioHondo (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, the killings that occured when he was mayor should be in that section. The killings that occured when he was president should be in that section. You havent said why you disagree. zzz (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mayor or President, he faces the same criticism and allegations of killings. So it stays under controversy section, both as Mayor and President.--RioHondo (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is WP:original research to call it "the same". It looks completely different to me. zzz (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Extrajudicial killings are Original Research? How so? The senate investigations on allegations of killings in the current drug campaign even refers to the same probe and witness from the Davao probe when he was mayor.--RioHondo (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You are saying the killings when he was mayor are "the same" as the killings now. That is original research. zzz (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, its the same controversy on his alleged policy of supporting extrajudicial killings, as mayor and now as president. And again, we have a section for controveries and criticisms. Unless you plan to move the Singapore flag burning and Pope cursing controversies to the section as Mayor also.. Otherwise it stays with the rest.--RioHondo (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"It's the same controversy" - please read WP:OR. I've already moved other stuff like [this] to the relevant section, and I will continue doing so, since you still haven't justified your claim that vigilante killings when he was mayor are "the same" as the nationwide police and vigilante killings in the "Drug War". zzz (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

(I see you have reverted that as well). I notice you have now left the drug war killings in the drug war section. So the question now is, why you moved the Davao killings to "Controversy and criticism" - after the presidency section, so it is out of chronological sequence. The obvious place it should be is in the "Mayor of Davao" section with the "Law and order" and "Crime rate" sections. "Controversy and criticism" does not even apply to much of it, which consists of Duterte openly stating his approval of killings, etc. What is your reason to move it to the end of the article? zzz (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

So far your entire argument consists of "Mass murder is controversial, isn't it?" And your edit creating a "Misogyny" "Controversy and criticism" section to collect various things that no source has described as misogyny is also unacceptable OR. zzz (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism section
Until there is no consensus that this section be removed and its content transferred elsewhere in the article, the section stays. And again, the extrajudicial killings are clear criticisms from international HR orgs Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International so it should be at controversy and criticism section.--RioHondo (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is already community consensus: "sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." There is no local consensus overriding that. Unless you get a local consensus to override the pre-existing community consensus, the material will stay in the appropriate non-controversy sections, and the tag will remain on the controversy section until the rest of it is dealt with (or there is agreement to leave it there). zzz (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion, that criticism of the subject (or anything you deem to be criticism) should be removed, is ... non-neutral. See WP:Policies and guidelines. zzz (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The only person that's pushing NPOV onto the article, including pushing a ludicrous lede (see above controversy), telling any detractors to "contact administrators" in the course of an usual talk page discussion, and various other demonstrations of WP:OWN, is you. 73.114.33.172 (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate. zzz (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you even understand what that WP:CSECTION guideline you posted actually says? The entire section on "extrajudicial killings" is one such section focusing on criticism that's only dedicated to negative criticisms about the person. So even if you take it out of the section named "controversy and criticism", it would still fail CSECTION precisely because it is plain negative criticism from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. What does the guideline say? Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies.--RioHondo (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

lede, "street children"
the 2009 Human Rights Watch report, cited by the Reuters article which was in turn cited in the lede, says the group targeted "suspected child rapists", not "street children".

I can find no original source that reports "street children" being targets.

73.114.33.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Reuters article clearly says, "Human rights groups have documented at least 1,400 killings in Davao that they allege had been carried out by death squads since 1998. Most of those murdered were drug users, petty criminals and street children." The term 'suspected child rapists" not found on the article. ~  Manila's Poging  Juan  02:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No more coatracking
This is an easy problem to decide.

The general reliability of sources aside, any material that can only be attributed to sources that don't mention Duterte should be removed from the article. I have seen User:Signedzzz do this or similar in the recent past, and PogingJuan did it yesterday. I am almost certain one of these users and one other will accuse me of "partisanship" or "bias" in only applying this rule to material I don't agree with, but such assumptions can be ignored.

It's super-simple -- go through every sentence of the article, check the source, and see if it mentions Duterte (or describes him in the way our article claims it does). If "no", then remove the sentence. Such material should be included in the articles on Davao or other related articles, not this one.

And while we're on the subject, citations of sources that don't mention Duterte and have nothing to do with our article content, or even sources that do mention Duterte and have nothing to do with our article content, are also inappropriate, and should be removed.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed several blog citations
See WP:BLPSPS. Also, it's not really relevant, but one of the blogs cited was written by this guy -- I'm not sure if, even were it not explicitly prohibited by the BLP policy, we should use a source by anyone who, apparently without irony, uses wording like "my grandfather who was a pure Chinese by blood". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations unrelated to article text
This article has a lot of sentences with multiple citations piled up on top of each other. This looks ugly. If they are all adequate to verify the content, the less relevant, or perhaps later, ones are redundant. If some of them do not verify the content, then they need to be removed as the sources are being misrepresented. I am starting a new section to discuss these citations one-by-one. Please add a new subthread for each citation to be discussed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC) (rewritten 23:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC))

ASEAN Cooperation on Environment
Could you explain this edit? The source does not mention Duterte or gender, and our article text to which you attached it does not mention ASEAN or the environment, which is what the source you added is about. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected
I have fully protected the article five days due to edit warring, as requested at WP:RFPP. If you perceive that a change has consensus, you can propose it here with Edit fully protected or ask at WP:RFED. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Muffled Pocketed  14:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, since my comments on ANI were unclear: I totally agree with this. Having finally had a look at the recent edit war and content dispute, I agree they were disruptive, as was the quasi-edit war that happened a few hours/days earlier. Protecting the page was the right move. The unrelated user conduct issues still need to be resolved and the article talk page is not the place for that. But I do endorse this move by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and EdJohnston. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Galing Pook award
First of all, nice to meet you again, after few days, and still about content dispute. Okay. The source says the gender mainstreaming (and not the award) is 'not because of Duterte but despite Duterte'. It clearly explains the person Duterte, not the governance of Duterte as a mayor. It also explains that macho image of Duterte was utilized as a force to push gender mainstreaming. Also, Mayor Duterte, as chief executive of Davao, has taken big part on gender mainstreaming, causing the city to receive Galing Pook award, by using his 'office' (City Mayor's Office) to implement "Davao City’s Gender Mainstreaming Institutional Mechanisms" as listed in the pdf source. So, it is rightful to include Under-Duterte-governance-on-Davao City's award on the article. If you have any questions, you can reply me under this section of your talk page. Cheers. ~  마닐라의 Poging  Juan  09:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved your comment on this article's content that has nothing to do with me from my talk page to here. Are you are saying that it's okay for you to coatrack but not for Signedzzz? How fair of you. Also, you are not allowed critically analyze and second-guess your source; just repeat what it says, if anything. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion of this on the article talk page. The PDF you linked is 66 pages long, 42 of them primarily consisting of text, and (in the searchable text portion at least) Duterte's name is mentioned a total of three times in two sentences on page 11. How on earth can you possibly think this is a reliable source for the claim that Duterte was responsible for his city receiving the award? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * PogingJuan, I sent you a message regarding the appropriateness of using my user talk page to discuss article content. My message was not itself about article content. Please do not move my comments out of their original location so that they no longer make sense. The header read When posting on others' user talk pages and was followed by Please refrain from editing your own posts. I had an edit conflict, and I received two separate notifications about messages from you. -- if you move a message like this onto an article talk page, remove the section header, and place it under a random section on the article talk page, it becomes nonsense. I am not sure if this was an accidental error or deliberate refactoring of my message, but in either case you should stop. Your message included a ping to me, clearly indicating that it didn't belong on my user talk page. If you continue in this kind of behaviour, I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I have explained that already. Why not search also "Mayor" and "City Mayor's Office", where Duterte is the officeholder from 1988-1998, 2001-2010 (Duterte-sponsored then-councilor was the mayor on 1998-2001 where Duterte can't hold due to term limits)? These years are stated in PDF. Just if you really use your common sense and rid of the ANI discussion we both got involved, the citation was a reliable source? Now, threatening me of a block, because you think I don't like your contribution, and apparently, because you think we have opposite views on ANI discussion, then immediately, you can file me a separate request for block, and I'll surely counter you. ~  Manila's Poging  Juan  11:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Virtually all instances of "Mayor" refer to different Mayors (Flores, Hitgano, etc.); the only time Duterte is referred to is on page 12 where it says Creation of the Integrated Gender and Development Division (IGDD) under the City Mayor’s Office -- if Filipino municipal governments work anything like Japanese ones, this doesn't mean anything, because either every municipal initiative is under the Mayor's Office or the decision to put such initiatives under the Mayor's Office is essentially arbitrary and not something we should be speculating on. Find a source that specifically ties the award to Duterte, or shut up. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, common sense bro! Don't compare Filipino and Japanese way of municipal governments, because I don't care. They are different. Japanese way of government does not apply in the Philippines and vice versa. I even don't live in Japan, causing me not to care. The contents are under "Gender Mainstreaming in Davao City", so for the sake of common sense, the mayor or city mayor's office stated under it is automatically about "Mayor of Davao City" and not mayor of Nagoya, mayor of Manila, mayor of London, etc. And based on the years, it is actually under Duterte or Duterte's governance. ~  Manila's Poging  Juan  11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not comparing anything. You are contrasting the Filipino and Japanese systems, and not providing any evidence. If you have personal experience of Filipino municipal governments, that's good for you, but the rest of us don't know -- if you are going to make the claim that because the Davao municipal government received an award it automatically reflects on the then-mayor enough that we should cite it in our article on him, you need to provide evidence in support of this claim. The most natural place for the information you added would be our article on Government of Davao City. We don't have such an article at the moment, but the existence of Government of New York City means we could easily have one. The second-best place would be Davao City (for whatever reason, that section says its main article is Districts of Davao City, which is clearly not the same thing). Our article on the then-mayor is maybe a distant third place. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was clearly supported. I don't know why common sense becomes rare today. I'm tired of explaining to a person, who really would not like to accept my contribution and rationale. ~  Manila's Poging  Juan  10:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:COMMONSENSE? It's an essay used to gloss a policy that itself is perhaps the most difficult to interpret and correctly apply of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I highly doubt you have read and understood it, if you cannot even understand why inserting random citations that have no relation to the article text is wrong. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the reason for my Japan analogy was to clarify how WP:BURDEN applies in this case. Since PogingJuan wants the article to include material that does not directly relate to a biography of Duterte as an individual, and instead relates to the city of Davao (which is how his source words it), then the BURDEN is on PogingJuan to explain at least how Filipino municipal government law makes "Davao City government between 2001 and 2010" and "Rodrigo Duterte and his individual political administration" essentially synonymous. This is not how it works in either the city where I grew up or the city where I worked in a related local government office. PogingJuan and I have interpreted the source differently, and I have been assuming that this difference is because of our different backgrounds and degrees of knowledge of the subject. The source does not directly state that the award was granted because of Duterte's governance, and my knowledge of the systems in two other countries inclines me to think that if the system in the Philippines is similar to either of them then Duterte individually had very little to do with the reason the award was granted. PogingJuan, being Filipino, likely has more immediate knowledge of how Filipino municipal governments work than I do, and so I was inclined to think that he may have accurately reading the source in light of some background knowledge he had. But the BURDEN is still on him to share this background knowledge so other Wikipedians can read it the same way he does. In Ireland, "Mayor" is an honorary title granted to the chairman of a council that vote on things, and in Japan the Mayor of a city is the figure at the top of the municipal government who signs off on a lot of things but we wouldn't assume that everything the municipal government did was directly a result of their action, and so in either an Irish or a Japanese context adding information about events in the city that happened to occur on this or that mayor's watch to the article on that mayor, in order to create an overall impression of that mayor, would be inappropriate. Since the Irish and Japanese systems are as different as they are, I have no reason to assume that the Filipino system isn't different again, but I also have no reason not to assume that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Galing Pook award
The text Davao City won the Galing Pook award for "gender-responsive" governance in 2004. should be removed. If anywhere, it belongs in the Davao City article, not here. The user who initially added it has recognized that it was inappropriate. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Requests for edits, Oct. 26 - Nov. 1
Effective Oct. 26, this page has been protected against editing by anyone who is not an administrator until Oct 31, 2016 at approx 3 PM UTC by administrator Ed Johnson, per this edit. Meanwhile, all non-administrator editors, please list your editing requests below:

( Tks: Scott P. (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC))

Add "gender responsive"
Can someone pls re-add the sentence " Davao City won the Galing Pook award for "gender-responsive" governance in 2004, as per this source: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/eropa/unpan031886.pdf

@User:MSGJ, anyone??? The award was given under the Duterte admin though, but if you think it's not appropriate, then please have someone add it in the Davao City article instead. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.115.145 (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. This text was removed per prior discussion. You need consensus to overrule that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Multiple by User:Scott_P
1. Need to reword "Early Life" section, paragraph 3, sentence 1, from: "...in 1948 but still go back and forth..." to "...in 1948  but still went back and forth...". Wrong verb tense was used. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

2. Need to add a reference to this article in the "Religion" section: https://coercioncode.com/2016/05/24/philippines-foul-mouthed-duterte-to-upset-rome/. Scott P. (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Maternal grandfather
Rodrigo Duterte's maternal grandfather, Eleno Roa, was born in Cebu City around 1876 according to Duterte's mother Soledad Duterte's birth record. Meaning, Eleno was not a Chinese immigrant. But, he might be a mestizo de sangley. 103.14.62.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * While your claim may be accurate, still, before it could be added to Wikipedia, you would have to somehow be able provide a proper way of verifying the existence of this legitimate birth certificate that you speak of. If you might in any way be able to do this, please let me know here.  If not, then I apologize, but we won't be able to add it.  I would be happy to work closely with you on this if you wanted.  Please let me know here how you want to proceed on this.  Thanks, Scott P. (text last updated: 19:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC))


 * Here's Soledad's birth register. This image is currently restricted and can only be accessed if you are a member of Latter-Day Saints. 203.215.121.83 (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Diddy Man

Wasn't he the first of the Diddy Men?
 * I attempted to view this image and I received a certain message, and later after a little digging, a certain explanation as follows: "May only be viewed by members of supporting organizations," and, "supporting organizations are... organizations with which we may have any number of contractual relationships."
 * Translation: This image may be available after a great deal of work, but it would have to be worth it. So three questions:
 * Have you yourself actually seen this certificate?
 * If so, how?
 * If not, then could you put me in touch with someone who has truly "seen" this? I would have to be able to actually see this certificate before we could go any further.  Please feel free to email me if you want, but you would have to be a signed in, email verified WP editor.


 * Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are both wrong. Wikipedia is not based on Wikipedia editors' hunting down nineteenth-century birth certificates. We duplicate what is reported in reliable sources. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes reliable sources require a little work to track down, no? Whether easy or hard to get doesn't make a source reliable or not. A verifiable government housed publication is usually considered to be reliable.  I have never heard that Wikipedia considered governmental records as intrinsically unreliable sources, have you? Scott P. (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In any event, this entire discussion about the birth certificate is probably moot, because it now appears (due to the seeming lack of a timely response by the requester) that the requester was probably basing his request upon "word of mouth" information, which was in itself obviously unverifiable, and therefore unacceptable OR. Scott P. (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Need of tags
User:Signedzzz: The following talk page sections shows several disputes and some of discussions (you, with User:RioHondo, and others) here have reflected possible conflict of interest, one-sided point of view, or systematic bias, especially with "Death squads" talk section: By the way, I have added the verify tag, because it clearly lacks sources. ~  Manila's Poging  Juan  15:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Death squads
 * Safest city
 * Removing mention of killings
 * Controversy and criticism section
 * To all parties involved, including me, please fix the article with WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:NPOV. Please do not remove tags, unless these issues are resolved. Regards.~  Manila's Poging  Juan  15:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Issues are now posted at WP:BLPN. I would like to ask editors here to join the discussion here or in BLPN on how we could improve this article and sort out the neutrality issues in the most non-partisan manner. Three unresolved issues:
 * 1. WP:CSECTION about getting rid of Controversy/criticism section, or any section that focuses only on criticism.
 * 2. WP:COATRACK and how several sections give WP:UNDUE weight to purely negative press or criticisms.
 * 3. WP:BLPCRIME and how certain sentences or section titles were made to suggest the person is guilty of any crime.
 * While there are no disputes here regarding the controversies and criticisms published by reliable sources, this article must still conform to WP:BLP, and particularly the writing style at WP:BLPSTYLE.--RioHondo (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume there is no objection to removing the systemic bias tag now. zzz (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

trump of the East nick
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-reaction-philippines-idUSKBN13412N mentions. Is it notable enough to include this moniker? Ranze (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * His staff used to suggest that back when he (Duterte) was running for president, while he pointed out that Trump is known for racism whereas he isn't; and now they find the comparison expedient again. Basically, no. (Unless they keep going on about it) zzz (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well they're both supported by the older working class populations in their respective nations. That needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD1A:1BE0:6432:B330:D7F9:3983 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Title/prefix removed?
Why was the Excellency prefix removed from the infobox? matieszyn (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Duterte himself as expressed his dislike for using the "His Excellency" title and has since issued a memorandum that would address him without the title in official communications. See here. PatTag2659 (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which photo should we use in the infobox?

 * 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.

Should this article's infobox include or ? 11:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
This edit caught my eye. The photo in the infobox has been changing constantly, despite being followed by a WP:COMMENT that reads "Don't change". I don't know who added the comment, when, why, or what image they intended to preserve there. But resolving the issue definitively with an RfC seems like a good idea. I am essentially neutral, but leaning toward the cropped photo because, while the June one appears to be slightly clearer, neither is ideal, and while in the June one he is smiling rather than having a weird "blank" expression, the cropped looks more formal, and the cropped photo doesn't include distracting text. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * For me, the September one looks clearer, or brighter at least. I also feel like changing the WP:COMMENT that reads "Don't change" to "Don't change without discussion in the talk page" so that if the photo is changed, threads like these could back it up. PatTag2659 (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * People sometimes seem to want a good or bad image, based on how they may percieve the subject matter of a given image (Duterte here). Sometimes such potential biases can be resolved by agreeing to use an image officially released by the person's office, e.g. the president's office. Scott P. (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The September photo is clearer and more recent which I prefer. The June photo is blurred and the wood background does not provide much contrast to Duterte's tan face. However I see why some would prefer the June photo, the partial portion of the seal of the president is visible which kinda gives a vibe of being "official" although both photos are officially released by the person's office. That said, I strongly prefer the September photo.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The September photo has better contrast. Besides that, in my opinion, Duterte's smile/smirk in the June photo is quite "distracting". Like in ID pictures, I prefer a formal/emotionless look. Sanglahi86 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should use the first one.  Adotchar | reply here  10:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer the September image because it is brighter, more clear, with a slight smile. Meatsgains (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Both images have less than ideal focus, but the first of the proposed options (the September photo) seems to me to have markedly better quality, contrast, and resolution, and has the benefit of being the more recent photo as well. I will say that the June image shows Duterte in the open-collar look that he often seems to favour, so there is that argument, but on the balance I'm still inclined towards the September photo.  S n o w  let's rap 09:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1st one. The seal being cut off in the 2nd one bugs me. summoned by bot. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The first one. I think the expression in the eyes is better in the second one, but the overall image quality is poor. That said, I don't think either is problematic. Chris vLS (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not the official portrait as we do with Western leaders? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs  08:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the photos in question are cropped versions of Official portraits. Not any of the three photos suggested so far are more "official" than the other. In my opinion the suggested photo which shows Duterte superimposed in a monochromatic Malacanang as a background is very unnatural. I can't recall any other world leaders whose portrait has a Photoshopped background.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 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.

Drug use section
User Hariboneagle: The title is neutral. You gave no explanation for how it isn't. It is a simple informative description of the content of the section. See WP:EUPHEMISM zzz (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave an explanation though, I know that illegal drugs =/= drugs, but I can see how it may potentially cause confusion for some readers given his key role in the latest campaign against illegal drugs. But I also reason that the section is redundant anyway since the information also relates to Duterte's health. Also I don't see how WP:EUPHEMISM applies here since I did not substitute "drug use" for a euphemism.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not substitute "drug use" for a euphemism: that is precisely what you did. zzz (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant I did not substitute the "drug use", the text. I removed the section title and merged the section to Health. Its not the same like if I rename the "Death" section to "Passing away".Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you did not "substitute the "drug use", the text". I did not imply that you did. A euphemism is the use of a "word or phrase to replace another". See the linked MOS guideline. zzz (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, Potential offensiveness aside, don't you think that the drug use subsection is under the scope of the health subsection?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources do not focus on a health aspect, so that is WP:OR. zzz (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rodrigo Duterte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213180224/http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2014/11/30/federalism-summit-davao-today-379430 to http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2014/11/30/federalism-summit-davao-today-379430
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151123202534/http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-makes-a-stand/ to http://www.mb.com.ph/duterte-makes-a-stand/#LubMmVQSGTGM834v.99

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Nazi?
As he has publicly praised Hitler's genocide, and likened himself to Hitler, should Duterte be described as a Nazi or neo-Nazi in the article? (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:D8AD:A5EA:C775:A0CA (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC))
 * No. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At the very least his words classify him as a Nazi sympathiser. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:D8AD:A5EA:C775:A0CA (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC))
 * No, strictly speaking he has compared the purge on suspected drug users to the Holocaust. He hasn't praise the Holocaust itself. Also that would be WP:OR (original research) when no academic source described him as such (Nazi, Neo-nazi).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Marriage to Elizabeth Zimmerman
I have found the marriage certificate of Rodrigo Duterte, to Elizabeth Zimmerman. They married on September 18, 1973 in Digos, Davao del Sur. Their marriage was solemnized by Municipal Judge Hon. Augusto H. Fernandez, and the witnesses to their marriage are Augusto Tesoro, maternal grandfather of Bong Go, and Remedios E. Llanos. 103.14.62.156 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Safest city
I removed this. See, for example, : "Davao City Rodrigo Duterte is riding on his bailiwick’s tag as world’s safest city but former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Solita “Winnie” Monsod believes its all hogwash. Monsod said the claim was based solely on data furnished by Numbeo.com, a website which used user-generated data to rank cities and countries based on health, cost of living, and quality of life. “What does this mean? This means it is based on what people (who go to the website) say, and not on hard data, which is why they talk about ‘perceived’ crime rates. That is why in the space of seven months—between April and November 2015—it moved from the ninth safest city to the No. 1 spot (from ninth to fourth, between April and June). In the Davao case, the ranking was based on less than 500 observations—all self-selected. On the other hand, the Economist Intelligence Unit has a list of the world’s 50 safest cities; Davao is not in the list.""

The Rodrigo_Duterte section should be expanded with info about Dutertes claims, showing how he has been "riding" them, but should not imply the claims are based in reality. The section currently states: Reuters reported in May 2016 that according to national police Davao has the highest murder rate and the second highest rape rate among 15 Philippine cities, and that locals think that the city has become safer because of Duterte's campaigns against drugs and crime. zzz (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * since you are still trying to edit-war this into the lead, I'll make it simple for you: Numbeo and unnamed "tourism organisations" are not reliable sources. zzz (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally removing this. This section has been minded by Duterte supporters for years, who constantly make reference to bogus crowdsourcing statistics on Numbeo (which are obviously influenced by summary execution enthusiasts and self-selected Duterte supporters) and remove references to actual police statistics and other valid methods of counting crime (which consistently show less than spectacular results during Duterte's time in office).108.3.147.182 (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in Economic Performance section
I suggest a rewrite of the section. It comes out as a clear example of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which is Latin for "after this, therefore, because of this". In other words, "since event Y came after X, Y was caused by X". Much of it rushes toward a conclusion while not discussing the global and national economy at large. Hence, several factors are ignored in coming up with the conclusions stated. A more concise and accurate article should give a good overview of the current state of the micro and macro economic factors and events on the national and global scale. --Arquenevis (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Gawad Supremo Award
Can someone add to Duterte's award the Gawad Supremo Award? Duterte is a former activist and member of the Radical Leftist Youth Movement during his Youth days under Jose Maria Sison. Being a Former Kabataang Makabayan he was awarded last year with the Gawad Supremo Award. Heres the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.35.162 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a reliable source
In the article there is a line that says "Duterte has Muslim Sharif ancestry tracing back to the Prophet Muhammad through Sharif Kabungsuwan with both Chinese ancestry and Muslim Maranao Moro ancestry via his mother and is the Philippine's only President with Muslim ancestry." It is cited by a news website but this does not seem reliable as the website says the source for this claim is "Malaysian genological experts" without specifically saying who. Should this entire statement be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is worth considering that Dr. Delmar Topinio Taclibon has written the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I got rid of the offending material. Next time you see anything this ludicrous please just delete it. zzz (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Note Deleted with this edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Holocaust denier
In this video he says three million Jews were killed, yet most sources place the figure higher: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-37515892/philippines-president-duterte-compares-drug-war-to-holocaust (86.144.82.85 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC))
 * That would be WP:OR to label his statement as an act of Holocaust denial if RS did not say so. Also while the figure said by Duterte is lower than six million. The Wikipedia page on Holocaust denial says that deniers often claims the number of Jews killed are less than a million. (Quote:"The kinds of assertions made in Holocaust-denial material include the following: Several hundred thousand rather than approximately six million Jews died during the war.") Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 Request to Change infobox
I think that, given that Trump was allowed (before the picture was pulled) to have his official portrait with a photoshopped White House in the background, Rodrigue Duterte.png should be the picture used in the infobox despite the photoshopped background. It simply looks far more official than using the cropped photo currently in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmithca (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The cropped photo is as "official" as the one with the Photoshop background. Both photos are of the Presidential Communications Operations Office. A natural photograph is preferable in my opinion if its available.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Socialist and CPC links
SHould we mention somewhere that he is a self-declared socialist and that members of his party are educated at party schools run by the Communist Party of China? --2A00:C440:20:164E:88C3:CB62:1D39:5C9 (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * His socialist links is worth to mention with citations. But the ruling party, PDP-Laban has yet to make cooperation with the CPP of China (not to be confused with the Communist Party of the Philippines which shares the abbreviation). As per . Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Things To Do

 * Separate presidential campaign to its own article
 * Due to the recent controversy of the COMELEC chief, there might be several more information that would come up during the investigation. This would bloat the section on Duterte's presidential campaign.Gilligan gomers (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fix and reorganize the sections
 * Look at Trump or the other pages of presidents, Duterte's page needs clean up. Some sections have their own main article.Gilligan gomers (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fix neutrality and verifiable sources
 * Duterte likes to say a lot of negative things, this often flood mass media and consistently make international news. As much as I'd hate to add things. Duterte had been severely vocal about this, often repeating it. Worse, more than a dozen international news outfits circulate the articles. There's nothing we can do about it for now. This is why it is more effective to just quote Duterte's own words. Gilligan gomers (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Some paragraphs needed to be double checked. If it wasn't for the previous discussion here about Duterte's maternal grandmother, I wouldn't have noticed that someone is making up an ancestral tree with a misleading and unverified source.
 * If you're interested in making an genealogical tree and exploring Duterte's roots, I think a separate article should be done instead, and just link it here, like in Trump's page. I think that's simply cleaner and more convenient to you.
 * Sections on Policies
 * This should fall under "fix the sections", but I'd like to put this in a separate item instead. So far, we don't have any coherent framework or policies aside from Duterte's war against drugs. We do have several soundbites but this is far from something that's actually in the works (in the papers). We should at least add the "Build, build, build" policy and some items from Duterte's second SONA. Gilligan gomers (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * [Put your suggested To-Do here]
 * [Describe or tell us why you want this, and other thoughts, but add your signature here]

List of Maintainers

 * 1) Gilligan gomers (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) [enter your signature here]

Do we have a list of active/veteran maintainers for this wikipedia page? Are there contributors here who actually live in the Philippines, and have the time to add and edit new sections neutrally? There had been a lot of events the past few months that I think should be added here
 * Shutdown of peacetalks with the CPP-NPA
 * 2nd SONA issues
 * ASEAN discussion results

It seems that there are several separate wikipedia main articles for the Drug War and other current events. It would be great if we could link them to this page.Gilligan gomers (talk) 04:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you're one of these guys, please feel free to add your signatures above and which section can people consult you on for reviewing. Gilligan gomers (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2017
Yeranned (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —   IVORK  Discuss 13:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments on Holocaust
Could his remarks on the Holocaust be considered Holocaust denial? Most sources estimate the number of Jews killed at 5-6 million. (86.144.80.217 (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC))


 * I don't think so, Duterte loves making exaggerated remarks, which the New York Times even called as "braggadocio". AFAIK, Duterte had already communicated with the jewish community in Manila to apologize for his remarks where he scoffed at the Holocaust (wherein he mocked the jews and alluded them as drug addicts who he thinks deserves to be killed). (203.87.133.138 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Again quoting myself above, regarding this issue under the talk page section "Holocaust denier?"

"That would be WP:OR to label his statement as an act of Holocaust denial if RS did not say so. Also while the figure said by Duterte is lower than six million. The Wikipedia page on Holocaust denial says that deniers often claims the number of Jews killed are less than a million. (Quote:"The kinds of assertions made in Holocaust-denial material include the following: Several hundred thousand rather than approximately six million Jews died during the war.") Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)"


 * Three million is a relatively lower claim but again reliable source of at least a relevant organization claiming Duterte's remarks as Holocaust denial is needed.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Case in the International Criminal Court
Is it possible to have a section on the ICC case against President Duterte? It would help inform people like me to see efforts made by the international community to stop this dictator. I heard from a friend that he threatened to commit mass murder against people who were investigating him for corruption. 203.87.133.136 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Cite Error
Reference #149 of this article contains a "Cite error." -- Sleyece (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Fixed. PatTag2659 (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rodrigo Duterte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160901200109/https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/17/rodrigo-duterte-rise-philippines-death-squad-mayor to https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/17/rodrigo-duterte-rise-philippines-death-squad-mayor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Revolutionary Government
Can details on Duterte's plans for a revolutionary government be included? I haven't really followed the news but I've read an article earlier this year that Duterte stated that he will destroy the republic of the philippines (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/915894/if-i-have-my-way-i-would-like-to-destroy-govt-says-duterte) and replace it with federalism. Dennys.Q.Oy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)