Talk:Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte

Issues

NPOV

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. However I believe that this article does not follow and conform to all of the NPOV rules Wikipedia has set.

• It uses words and phrases that imply lack of credibility:
  • In August 9, Duterte claimed that he went to Camp Crame to see the 'crazy woman', referring to his nemesis, imprisoned senator Leila de Lima.
  • Duterte claimed that the archbishop was killed because he had illicit affairs, to which the Catholic Church answered back denying such accusations.
  • On the same day, the Armed Forces of the Philippines 'accidentally' opened fire and killed 6 members of the Philippine National Police in Villareal, Samar, causing conflict between the military and the police force. The government branded the event as a 'misencounter' - uses quotation marks in such a way that, again, implies lack of credibility and outright lying.
• It endorses a particular POV, that of the negative one.
• It has editorial content, opinions from the editors, with statements such as:
  • allowing greater Chinese intrusions in Philippine economy and sovereignty - which led to Duterte's alternative introduction in Philippine pop culture as 'a rich Chinese president pretending to be a poor Filipino

Factual accuracy

Some of the statements aren't true at all. Here are some examples:

• [On the fishes laced with formaline]Later, it was revealed that those fish being injected by formaline were fished by China within Philippine waters in the West Philippine Sea, sparking nationwide protests. - this 'fact' came from a comment in the source provided.
• In June 29, TIME listed the #BabaeAko (I am a Woman) movement in the Philippines as one of the world' 25 'most influential people' online, angering Duterte who is known as a 'misogynist' among Filipino feminist groups - source 1 and source 2 does not say that Duterte is angered at the movement being listed in TIME.
• In May 3, the Commission on Appointments (CA) rejected the environment secretary appointment of Gina Lopez. Majority of CA members were both mining investors and Duterte allies - Duterte supported Gina Lopez (source), and in fact even thinks that there was a conspiracy on the aforementioned rejection (source)
• In May 7, Duterte-ally and senator Cynthia Villar, whose son Mark Villar is the public works secretary of Duterte, admitted that she has business interests in Boracay as her family owns Boracay Sands (a Villar-owned Vista Land property), an environmental offender on the island - she didn't admit this, the source states that "the senator (Villar) would like to let you know that as a senator, she is not involved in her family’s business and it’s best to ask the company instead. Thank you"
• In August 24, Duterte promised to fast-track projects in the Philippines that are heavily funded by China, sparking criticism on China's debt-trap diplomacy and Duterte's carefree attitude on the matter, as the projects have extremely high interest rates. - lack of sources, and duterte promised all infrastructure projects, not just those that are china funded (source).

Too long

The article does not conform to WP:TLDR. Compared to other 'Presidency of' articles such as that of Benigno Aquino III and Fidel Ramos, it is way too long. This article is about the president's policies, overview, and controversies, but not the entire history of the entire administration.

ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 12:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Itsquietuptown: I see a lot of politically charged statements and indiscriminate info throughout the article. I just fixed numerous politically biased (anti-Duterte) wording on image captions, and removed a fair use image of the assassination of Antonio Halili. I agree that this have so many issues to fix, that I may bring it to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I finished massive cleanup first done by User:Hariboneagle927, and deleted the excessively long sections, but I kept those in this page: User:TagaSanPedroAko/Original contents of Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte. Anyone who wants to edit this can refer to that page when re-adding content adding into this article.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I have overhauled the entire article to include the administration programs, and significant laws and orders signed by the President. Perhaps some other editors could help in making some of the paragraphs more cohesive. As for length, I think the Changes subsection under Administration should be split into a new article. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Shinzō Abe and Rodrigo Duterte 3 9.6.16.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

GOCE editing

following a request for GOCE review, I've started a first pass of this article to clean up flow, grammar, and POV/bias. I will be condensing some redundant or extraneous information, but I'm erring on the side of leaving content in for later deletion. Any thoughts on this process, please feel free to tag me and/or submit your own edits. Paradoxasauruser (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO, the copyedit request should be declined until the article is split; the current prose size is 107 kb, which exceeds WP:SIZERULE. Article splitting is beyond the GOCE's scope. All the best, Miniapolis 14:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"and POV/bias"??? I suggest you be very careful about that. Even experienced editors routinely fail to understand that properly sourced bias is allowed, so in all your massive deletions, don't try to fix "POV/bias". Seriously, all editors need to check the deletions made so far, and if there is any shade of "and POV/bias", revert back to before all this deletionism started. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Paradoxasauruser: I agree with all of those concerns. There is some amount of bias that appears in the article by implicitly agreeing with how supporters of Rodrigo Duterte would characterise him and his presidency. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip @Valjean Noted. Could you provide any examples of deletions that should have been retained? I'm having difficulty understanding in the context of the article, given the length especially, what kind of acceptable bias I removed that warranted inclusion. For my part - it's been a while so hard time remembering - I tried only to remove unnecessary commentary, eg Duterte praising his own policy or a non-neutral choice of words that reflected an editor's perspective, and not things like public opinion, diplomatic perspectives, etc. POV/bias was an ambiguous catch all, but heard, going forward. Appreciate it. Paradoxasauruser (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

There isn't such thing as acceptable bias, we should maintain a neutral point of view throughout the article. I have not seen any unwarranted removals and I encourage you to continue editing the article. To be clear, I am agreeing with your concerns over grammar, bias and organisation, and for the need to condense or remove redundant and extraneous information. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Too long

Someone's definitely said this before, but this is the longest non-list article on Wikipedia. 107kb is ridiculously long, considering WP:Article size says over 32kb can take up to 5 seconds to load. Do you think we should spilt it, and if so, how? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Too long" issue of this article way back in 2018 was due to the article reaching at least 800kb at that time because several routine and irrelevant info were added by a persistent IP editor. This article ranks as "the longest non-list article on Wikipedia" because all its sources have an archive URL; removing the archive URLs, even for live sources, would not be an improvement. The current prose size is 111kb, much lower than Presidency of Donald Trump which currently has a prose size of 148kb but currently ranks as the 12th longest article. This article has been expanded to be thorough and splitting some sections into new articles might not be a good idea since most sections themselves are not that long. It might be better to probably condense the content or revise entire sections for conciseness. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Both this article and the Presidency of Donald Trump article are very large and not an ideal size. Some sections have effectively already been split into other articles, such as those about the war on drugs and on COVID-19. It does seem difficult to split this article though, so condensing the content would be the best solution at this point. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, I appreciate your good intentions in trimming this long article, but you have recently deleted several vital content instead of summarizing it. Perhaps you could kindly restore the deleted information in the article and wait for or request other editors who are adept in summarizing information to rewrite the content using fewer words. Sanglahi86 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed information that can be found in other articles and is not as directly important to the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte. I don't intend on doing that to content that is not already in other articles. Content has been added to the article without summarisation over recent months. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, deleting content just because it exists in other articles is easier than spending months to make an article thorough and comprehensive enough. You left no summary when vital information such as the NTF-ELCAC, ICC withdrawal, Leila de Lima's arrest, and the Barangay Drug Clearing Program were removed. Moreover, deletion of sentences affected the cohesion of several paragraphs. I will restore the original text and try to summarize it in my free time. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that the information removed was vital to an article on the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, but I support your efforts to summarise the detail. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: I reverted some of your edits and have not reverted others. I am more than willing to discuss this on the talk page as an editing dispute. I would encourage you to contribute additional content to the sub-articles, rather than to this one, which needs greater structural change. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should at least restore information on the implementation of "draconian measures", "a local-government unit-led approach" to the COVID-19 pandemic, expansion of COVID-19 testing capacity, and appointing of czars to respond to the pandemic; since these are not "too much" detail for the article. Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Of all those, I think only expanding testing capacity may be worth mentioning here, and a brief mention at most. Every government in the world increased its testing capacity, and appointed officers to manage the response. Calling the measures draconian wouldn't be neutral of us as well. These are too much detail for the article, although at least we could remove detail before adding these in. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. I believe the administration itself opted to use the term "draconian measures" (please see the ABS-CBN citation). I also think the dependence of the administration in the military and police in enforcing the health guidelines should be restored; other more critical sources even call the administration's COVID-19 response "militaristic" though I think that term may be contentious. As for the local-government unit-led approach in contact tracing efforts, I also think it is worth a mention. We could try removing the detail under the existing paragraph below or remove the entire paragraph all throughout; I am not very sure if this paragraph is even very relevant since the Pharmally scandal in another paragraph is what is more notable.

The administration purchased and distributed medical equipment and supplies. On March 30, 2020, the DOH purchased one million items of personal protective equipment (PPE) worth ₱1.8 billion for COVID-19 health workers, prompting the Senate to call for a probe on overpricing. On May 20, Duterte took full responsibility for the procurement of PPE, saying he ordered health secretary Francisco Duque III to expedite the procurement of PPE regardless of cost to prevent compromising of the health workers' safety. The DTI also boosted local production of medical equipment through its Shared Service Facility Fabrication Laboratories project.

Sanglahi86 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

We could probably mention if Duterte himself referred to the measures as "draconian". The overpricing is worth mentioning in this article to some extent, but all this detail really needs to be put into Philippine government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with a few sentences here to essentially summarise that article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Duterte mentioned the term here. Do you have any sentence/paragraph suggestions on how to include the previously mentioned information (dependence on military/police, LGU-led approach)? I am having a hard time right now to construct a summary that could be satisfactory. Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The more extraneous content in this article should be moved to the various sub-articles about the Duterte presidency and the Philippine government and not included in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)