Talk:Philippine drug war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Global War on Drugs

Hi. Is Duterte's war on drugs part of the US-led international effort to curb the drug trade? See War on Drugs. I think it is important to note that in the article if it is. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it is related to the US-led war on drugs. It is a self initiative of President Duterte 210.162.216.128 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This has almost nothing to do with the US War on Drugs. This is a domestic operation launched by the new Philippine government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agila81 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2016

2602:306:32A7:17E0:442D:6644:1E1E:7AFD (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Can I change The Numbers for the casualties of the Phillipines Drug War?

Note: If you provide the exact change you want made along with a reliable source to corroborate your information, someone will change it for you. Topher385 (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article to Philippine War on Drugs or Philippine war on drugs

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. There is already an RM going on (above). Please leave 1 RM open on a talk page. Please comment in that RM and bring this up there. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Pending favor for other move proposals, this article should be renamed to "Philippine War on Drugs" or "Philippine war on drugs". "Philippine Drug War", or "Philippine drug war", doesn't sound right, as the phrase "drug war" implies a war between drugs or drug companies or drug lords, or a war between two parties over a source of drugs (as in "oil war"), or a war using drugs (as in the First Opium War and the Second Opium War). The Americans called their "drug war" a War on Drugs, and the American-initiated War on Terror was never referred to as a Terror War. I understand that some sources refer to Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs as a "drug war", as the Mexicans wrongly did in referring to their Mexican Drug War, but other cited sources in this wiki do actually refer to Duterte's war as a "war on drugs," which is the grammatically correct way to call it.

"Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs" is another option. -- Bagoto (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Support to Philippine War on Drugs/Philippine war on drugs as per WP:COMMONNAME. "Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs" cannot do, because it is legally operated under the government with the help of involved government agencies and military and police force. ~Manila's PogingJuan 08:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Forum shopping. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal to rename article to Rodrigo Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. More editors oppose this move than support it, with no consensus that I can see, yet, to lowercase "Drug War". (non-admin closure)  Rules of enpagement Paine  16:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Philippine Drug War → Rodrigo Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs – I know the article is longer, but the phrase "Philippine Drug War" (all words capitalized suggesting its a proper name of the campaign) is neologism. Unlike the "Mexican Drug War" this phrase has yet to be used extensively by academic sources. However I do acknowledge, that the creator of the article may have modeled the campaigns name to that of Mexico under good faith.

Also it also implies that there was no crackdown on illegal drugs in the Philippines before. Given the scope of the article I suggest renaming the article to "Rodrigo Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs". Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Also the scale of the two "Drug Wars" are different. What was happening as of the moment in this "Philippine Drug War" is alleged drug addicts surrendering and summary killings of suspects. No cartels fighting over territory at the same time having armed encounters with government forces.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest rename to Oplan Tokhang instead. As far as reliable sources are concerned, that is its WP:COMMONNAME. As for the current title, Philippine Drug War, that is actually accurate and id say neutral as there have been no direct armed conflict against druglords of this scale in the Philippines before. There have been crackdowns on a limited scale yes, not on a war level, and i also oppose using the President's name in the title as the President stands for the country and the Presidents campaign is the country's campaign.--RioHondo (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

* Support rename to Oplan Tokhang, since there is an official name for the anti-drug operation and "Philippine Drug War" as it is (without change in capitalization) isn't WP:COMMONNAME.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not English an not concise. What is this "Tokhang" thingy? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: "Oplan" could be "Operation" instead which is also used by the media (1, 2, 3). The "silliness" of the choice of operation name is a irrelevant but apparently that word is a portmanteau of the visayan words Toktok-Hangyo, this info could be added here irregardless if the page is moved or not.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (both Oplan Tokhang and Rodrigo Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs). If we renamed it as Oplan Tokhang ('knock and persuade' in English translation of Cebuano word 'toktok-hangyo'), then the casualties from Davao City dated from 2011 to 2013 and 2015 to May 2016 (still from Davao City) must be included in the casualties list. For your information, the nationwide Oplan Tokhang, declared by PNP Chief Ronald Dela Rosa by early July 2016, is a nationwide version of Davao city-wide Oplan Tokhang, which was declared by then Davao City police director Dela Rosa, back to 2011. We should retain it as 'Philippine Drug War' because of the media doing so on their news reports. We should put May 10 as the starting date, I think, because it was part of conflict against the illegal drug trade (that was actually for the preparation of Duterte's presidency and actual war on drugs) and many news reports show death statistics from May 10. We should write 'Oplan Tokhang' as its codename. We should also write Benigno Aquino III in the list of commanders, because the country from May 10 to June 30 was still part of Aquino presidency and police, that time, was still under Aquino. What do you think on my suggestions, guys? ~Manila's PogingJuan 13:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I have been seeing news reports that only include the data from when Duterte took his oath of office June 30 (Inquirer). And from what I gathered also, this Oplan Tokhang is just one component of Oplan Double Barrel which also includes an Oplan High Target? for big time drug lords. Can someone confirm this? I wouldnt want figures from May 10. As much as possible, lets stick to the current campaign of the current admin but maybe include a short narrative of the developments leading to it under background. Im good with Philippine drug war (not capitalized), or Oplan Double Barrel.--RioHondo (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

'Comment. Point taken, since there seem to be many "oplans" to Duterte's wider anti-drug campaign. If "Oplan Double Barrel" is confirmed to be the overall oplan then this could be a better alternative. I'm also fine now to "Philippine drug war" due to a lack of better alternatives.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I agree on your suggestion User:RioHondo but the word "oplan" is a Filipino word. It should be named as "Operation Double Barrel"--User:Daisynians 6:37 pm, 26 July 2016 —Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – "Philippine Drug War" seems to be the best WP:COMMONNAME for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support I don't suppose "Philippine Drug War" should be the name. I'm afraid that so-called "citogenesis" may happen, so I would support to change this to "Rodrigo Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs." This is a war between the government, drug lords, drug traffickers, and narco-politicians, and there is still no wars between drug cartels, although Rodrigo Duterte confirmed the Sinaloa Cartel have entered the Philippines, and seems to be behind the killings of drug pushers to take over illegal drug operations in the country and wage war against Chinese drug lords.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support See revised proposal below. The present title is not a proper name (i.e. should not have "Drug War" capitalized per MOS:CAPS); "drug war" is heavily WP:POV language; and the proposed non-English name is uncommon in English, does not comport with WP:USEENGLISH, would not be capitalized either, and others object above that it doesn't mean what some people here think it means. Some other title could also be devised, like Philippine campaign against illegal drugs, unless the content is strictly limited to Rodrigo Duterte's policies and would remain limited that way after he is no longer in office.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment. This is not just a campaign of the incumbent President. You have the different government agencies and executive dept, MILF, MNLF, even CPP waging this war on drugs. Mainstream media refers to this campaign as a drug war or war on drugs so let's stick to the title Philippine drug war (not capitalized) based on WP:COMMONNAME as it appears now.--RioHondo (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Then move to Philippine campaign against illegal drugs. I would very weakly support RioHondo's proposal below, for Philippine drug war, but only as a last resort because it has PoV problems. That is, if we're going to ignore the WP:NPOV concerns, at least fix the title to comply with WP:NCCAPS / MOS:CAPS. Oppose made-up semi-translations like "operation double-barrel", "knock and persuade", etc., in any capitalization, as unsourced WP:OR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Philippine campaign against illegal drugs is a good alternative, only the mainstream media refers to it more as a war, than just a regular campaign. Proof is that 11 of the 28 references in the article contains the word "war" in their headlines.--RioHondo (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

support move to Philippine campaign against illegal drugs Sizeofint (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Support since the "Philippine campaign against illegal drugs" describes the situation as it is which is a law enforcement campaign against illegal drug trade rather a full scale war of between drug cartels for territory and the government regaining order (despite the involvement of the armed forces in the Philippine "drug war". "drug war", to the lesser extent "war on drugs" is sensational. Also some media sources even use scare quotes [" "] to enclose "drug war" and "war on drugs".Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rename instead to Philippine drug war based on WP:COMMONNAME.--RioHondo (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

References

If the operation started on June 30 2016, then the figures in the Statistics section should definitely be updated to reflect that. The list goes back to May 11 2016, which is ridiculous because the current President wasn't even in power yet at the time, and the crackdown hadn't officially started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agila81 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. But isn't "campaign" lame, as against what the cited sources and Rodrigo Duterte himself would call it, as a "war"? Thus perhaps Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs might be more apt? -- --Bagoto (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. "Campaign" is kinda luckluster compared to "war" but it is indeed a campaign against illegal drugs. Commenting on previous opinions against attaching Duterte's name to the article I suggest viewing Talk:Anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jinping as reference.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can I include this in the article?

I think I will not include in these article because someone will delete it. Aside from criticism of Senator Leila de Lima and other parties, this time, a video of actor Baron Geisler criticize President Rodrigo Duterte and Senator Manny Pacquiao, who supports war on drugs, for recent killings of alleged of drug suspects. The video was scattered on social media about second week of August 2016. You can watch the video of him at YouTube.

Watch the video of him
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNq0q3tnqV0

Comment how does a comment of an actor be due on this article. Its certain that several parties have their different opinions on this but let's limit the reaction of people to people who matter to the issue (Politicians, Church leaders, business leaders). But posting questions in the talk page is always appreciated.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment you can include those comments in the Criticism section of the wiki. -- Bagoto (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

PH Drug War start date

Several media outlets consider May 9 (election day) as the start of Oplan Tokhang/Philippine Drug War, via the statistics of persons killed on police operations, summary killings and arrests. But in this article, it started on June 30, the day President Duterte takes office. So which of these 2 dates should be considered as start date of PH Drug War? SkyHigher (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment You can elucidate on that in the Background section of the wiki. --Bagoto (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPOV concerns

Hi. I believe the current President Rodrigo Duterte was only sworn into office on June 30, 2016. So whatever happened from his election on May 9 to his inauguration would have to be attributed to then incumbent President Benigno Aquino III. The figures and the campaign should only include those from June 30, 2016 onwards.--RioHondo (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the article now only mentions events after 30 June 2016, I'm untagging. Banedon (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV concern still valid as statistics include deaths from when the incumbent Pres and PNP Chief were not yet in office.--RioHondo (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Included a note for now below the statistics for nowHariboneagle927 (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

External links

To User:Shhhhwwww!! Per WP:ELNO:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. (Note neutrality)
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. (Note: government's involvement in killings is still allegation/unverified)

Censorship is what you did to the article on Leila de Lima, deleting almost the whole controversy section and others you think were too personal. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged in Wikipedia.--RioHondo (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No comment. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Citing references from international news outlets

Before you cite references from international news outlets, think twice as they contains mostly negative reputation and even mocks and/or lambasts about our President. Some international news outlets are referred from the local news outlets. BSrap (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Hariboneagle927, "Drug traffickers" and "Corrupt government officials" do not seem to have much - if anything - to do with the police operations this article is about. It is original research to add them to the infobox as "Parties to the Civil Conflict" unless you are just going to add everyone Duterte has said he doesn't like. zzz (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is drug traffickers and government officials involved in the illegal drug trade, at least suspected ones, are obviously the target of this police operations. But government officials could be rephrased to "Government officials involved in the drug trade" or something. They are parties to this law enforcement operations as targets and not as the ones who implement this law enforcement campaign. Of course we are not going to add anyone who Duterte doesn't liked.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I think for it to be credible you have to be specific, which I think is what zzz is trying to say. Im trying to review reliable sources to find out who the targets of the drug campaign really are cos media always refer to them as just local drug traffickers or drug lords or drug syndicates with no names. I found these: 1 2 3. These sources (and even Duterte himself in several occasions) refer to them as lieutenants or allies of Chinese Triads and Sinaloa Cartel. The SCMP source even identified 2 of the Triads operating in the Philippines as 14K Triad and Sun Yee On. So i guess we can include the above RS in the infobox under drug traffickers/drug lords with the note "Supported by". Lets see what else I can find.--RioHondo (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If traffickers and government officials are "obviously" the targets of these police operations, there must be reliable secondary sources stating this. The links you provide aren't about the "Drug War" - 2 are from before it began, and the other is just Duterte claiming that Mexican drug cartels are "using the country as their transshipment point". zzz (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Provided a better source at least for the dealers, pushers and users.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, there havent been news on any operation targetting a mexican cartel or affiliate since this war began i think, so thats out. The big time drug traffickers killed so far are found here, that includes several Chinese drug lords. And then this is recent, theres another 1,000 government officials in Duterte's new list, and an entire page of Chinese traffickers.1. That should support the drug traffickers, corrupt government officials and the Chinese drug lords.--RioHondo (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting ref. Duterte holds up a list of names, and says he will give a copy to the police and the Army. So where did he get the list from? Anyway, there's no ref confirming or supporting police raids or vigilante attacks on "corrupt politicians", so I removed that. zzz (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Agila81: "Main targets are narcotic dealers and/or distributors." Do you have a ref confirming that the majority killed/arrested are dealers/distributors and not just users? zzz (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Btw, on corrupt politicians

On Chinese drug syndicates

That should be enough to support them as targets of the campaign.--RioHondo (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Start

@RioHondo:the ref in the lead does not say CP2B started at Duterte's inauguration.

He will formally take over the 160,000-strong Philippine National Police (PNP) on July 1 yet, but Chief Superintendent Ronald dela Rosa already has a plan on how to purge the country of illegal drugs, among the key campaign promises of President-elect Rodrigo Duterte. “We will call it Campaign Plan Double Barrel. Isang kalabit sa barrel, dalawang trigger ang puputok. Merong barrel na naka kalabit sa taas, sa high value target at merong barrel na tatama doon sa baba, doon sa mga street-level personalities,” Dela Rosa, Duterte’s pick for PNP chief, said in a chance interview on Wednesday, June 29.

zzz (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, if we want to be specific, i guess we can use July 1, 2016 as the official start of the campaign, as per our Rappler reference on the death toll which started tallying them July 1st. It was also when current Philippine National Police chief Ronald dela Rosa took office. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

SCMP 14 July: "The Philippine government on Thursday hailed its war on drugs a “success”, as police confirmed killing nearly 200 people in a two-month blitz that has outraged rights groups. President Rodrigo Duterte’s office released a statement calling for authorities to “seize the momentum” of the anti-drug campaign, which has also led to a spate of vigilante killings that one media group said had claimed roughly 200 more lives. “Anti-drug campaign a success,” said the title of the statement, released by presidential spokesman Martin Andanar. “While the campaign against drugs is far from perfect, a generation of Filipinos have been saved from this scourge of society and destroyer of lives.” His statement was issued as the national police released figures showing that officers had killed at least 192 people they said were involved in drugs from May 10 to July 10. ..." zzz (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thats the thing. Duterte was only sworn into office on June 30, 2016 so technically and officially, the Benigno Aquino III government was still in control in those months leading to Duterte's inauguration. We can't say the drug war was started by an outgoing President, but it tells us that the former President allowed the killings to begin then. We cant use that as a source.--RioHondo (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It says the "drug war" started after the May 9 election. There is no source currently that says it started on July 1 or June 30. zzz (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's what your Rappler death toll reference uses as the start date of the official tally on deaths related to the current drug campaign. That is also your basis for saying it began after Duterte's inauguration in the lead. You use the same reference regularly to update the stats in the infobox. Unless you will replace it with something from May 10 instead, which will change the whole plot of the article and the addition of President Benigno Aquino III and his Philippine National Police chief Ricardo Marquez.--RioHondo (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I only adjusted the figures today, which is why I clicked on the ref that was already in the infobox death section. I noticed that it seemed to imply that the date of June 30 was wrong, so I removed that from the lead. Since it also doesn't say that the "drug war" started after the inauguration, perhaps that should also be removed, and the death total in the infobox should say, "since July 1". zzz (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The Philippine Daily Inquirer external link to their Kill List has the death total from May 10. If you eventually choose to use that figure, and say it began after Duterte was elected, we will have to adjust the text in the background and major events as well as the infobox to include mentions of the former President Benigno Aquino III and PNP chief Ricardo Marquez.--RioHondo (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now just failed to specify a start date. I would state explicitly that it is unclear when it started, but I do not have a source for that either. It's not ideal. zzz (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"his war on drugs, which began while he was the Mayor of Davao" zzz (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, I would not say that the Drug War is not initiated by President Rodrigo Duterte. The Drug War was started many years ago, only to be operated occasionally. This means that the Drug War under Duterte administration has been strictly implemented. Days after the May 10 election, the drug raid operations and people apprehended for curfew violation are still in Aquino administration, not Duterte. This operations have been decried by some international media and even included Duterte's name despite a month before he is about to be seated as the president. —BSrap, 11:50 AM 10/6/2016 PST —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Philippine Drug War = Oplan Tokhang?

Is Oplan Tokhang THE overall campaign against illegal drugs or is it just a major component of the Philippine war on drugs? I'm more inclined to think its the latter since this article mentions another operation or oplan called Oplan Galugad.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The official anti-drug campaign of the PNP under PDuterte's administration is PROJECT "DOUBLE BARREL". It has a two-pronged approach, the "PROJECT TOKHANG" or Lower Barrel Approach, and the "PROJECT HVT" (High Value Targets) or Upper Barrel Approach. TOKHANG is for streel-level enforcement and HVT is for big-time drug personalities, including chinese syndicates, police and military personnel, and government employees that are involved in illegal drugs. Here's the documents available at PNP's Official website: [1] [2] [3] Danryan132 (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

International reactions

According to this recent article in the NY Times, President Duterte said President-elect Donald Trump told him he endorses the anti-drug campaign... Should it be added to this article? Level C (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The targets are overwhelmingly suspected users or low-level dealers. The infobox gives WP:UNDUE emphasis to high- level Chinese drug syndicates etc. I have simplified it to "Suspected drug users and distributors", which is both accurate and neutral. It is a stretch to call any of these largely unsuspecting targets "Parties to the civil conflict", but short of removing the infobox altogether, that can't easily be fixed. zzz (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A single editor POV cant be used to reverse what many sources indicate. International media report the targets of the Operation as such, Drug related organizations. "Alleged", "Gov-Propaganda claim" its not the issue here. Please refrain for changing sourced edits, if so use a fair amount of RS. A 3 line explanation in a talk page isn’t enough to justify a disruptive edition. Mr.User200 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Suspected drug users and distributors" is accurate. What is your complaint exactly? zzz (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr.User200 I see you have reverted again without explanation [4]. Your first edit to the page [5] added "Criminal Gangs" to the infobox. Then you reverted [6] User Hariboneagle, removing "former" from a group that no longer supports the Drug War. You then added a reference for "Criminal Gangs" [7] which doesn't mention anything about gangs. "Chinese Drug Syndicates" is supported by references like [8] which states "The bodies of three drug suspects—including a Chinese-looking man and woman accused of being drug lords—were found in Manila on Sunday." The Philippine Star Website is down atm, but one of those refs actually has the police chief complaining that the media don't ever mention Chinese drug syndicates, and it is not Wikipedia's job to "correct" that for him. If you have a reason for removing "Suspected drug users and distributors" and replacing it with this bullshit I suggest you state what it is. zzz (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Be polite otherwise you will only get into trouble.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You are vandalising Wikipedia by adding material that is unreferenced, and then adding a reference that does not mention anything about what it is supposed to support. As I just stated. Do you have any comment, or should I just report this at WP:ANI? zzz (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the "crime gangs", Mr.User200, which I promise to discussed here. The citation used does not mentioned "criminal gangs" as a target of the anti-drug campaign, nor any other organized crime groups. The headline of the source reads "Philippine war against drugs claims 44 lives a day: police report" and the word "crime" is used to refer to involvement against illegal drugs. "war on crime", "promise to fight crime", refers to crackdown against illegal drugs. No mentions of gangs, criminals, syndicates or a mafia. That is WP:OR. Even if that's true that the government has crackdown on other crimes. The scope of this article is the campaign against drugs and does not include crimes that does not involved drugs, such as pickpockets, some terrorist attacks, government corruption (may or may not involve illegal drugs)

The problem is not every drug user/trafficker targeted in this campaign is necessarily part of a syndicate or gang. So Suspected drug users or distributors is accurate.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The additions by User200 are highly POV and unwarranted. The sources he cites do not support the edits, which make it look as if "Gangs" and "drug syndicates" are organized opponents in a war with the government. "Suspected drug users" is a good blanket term, and much more NPOV. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversial topic

I added the {{controversial}} template here as this is a controversial article, and as response to edits made by Mr.User200. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well done of course is controversial, comparing the Holocaust with the killing of drug users and calling to hung people twice is controversial, in any way you see it.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is controversial: yes, it is. Please edit in good faith but keep the topic neutral, as what you said, it is controversial. But, if you continue POV pushing or polarizing without talking with other editors in this article (and related ones, especially related to Rodrigo Duterte and his presidency) I look up the possibility of bringing this dispute in WP:ARBCOM, yet, this issue is still not very worse for such action to be done. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of the wider US-led War on Drugs?

I honestly don't think this campaign is part of the US-led War on Drugs, even though if Donald Trump or any US official express vocal support forthe campaign. User:SoloWing3844 thinks otherwise. This definitely needs some sources simillar to what was done in the Mexican Drug War where the United States has far greater involvement.

There is definitely a global campaign against illegal drugs but the War on Drugs article revolves around the United States' global efforts and not the United Nations or any consolidated/centralized effort by a coalition of governments. The lead of the article states:

"The War on Drugs" is an American term usually applied to the United States government's campaign of prohibition of drugs, military aid, and military intervention, with the stated aim being to reduce the illegal drug trade.

Any comments by any user is welcomedHariboneagle927 (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Viewpoint noted. However the article is not a world-view of the topic, and mainly focuses on US efforts in combating illegal drugs. If we keep reading it further states:

"This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the United Nations have made illegal."

Read three paragraphs down, and then we have:

"Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed."

It is understandable that each country implements their own drug policies, however when a nation's anti-drug policies escalates into an armed conflict. It should become apart of the "War On Drugs".

While the term came from Richard Nixon in 1971, the article is mainly an American view of the topic even though the article states that the War on Drugs is a global initiative that originated from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. From User:SoloWing3844 —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is (at least partly) WP:OR and unusable. zzz (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"This is supposed to be neutral"

@Agila81: When you blank out a load of edits, that is your explanation. Please check out how Wikipedia functions, because that sure as hell isn't it. Cheerszzz (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: Hmmmm.... Your own edits on this article blatantly suggest a heavy slant/clear bias. Agila81 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to question an edit, go ahead. They have edit summaries, helping people to understand why each small edit is an improvement. If I have made a mistake in any of them, feel free to state your opinion on why. What you cannot do, is remove all edits by any one user on sight without discussion. If you think of something, then I suggest you put it here on this page to be discussed and hopefully fixed or improved. zzz (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agila81 Speaking of "a heavy slant/clear bias", do you want to explain edits like this, or this, examples of your last few edits? zzz (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Agila81: fixing ping. zzz (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The war crimes allegations, i.e, the same charges by Amnesty, HRW and Reuters that Signedzzz has been reporting here as facts and not as allegations since time immemorial, have now been filed with the International Criminal Court in the Hague. But as ICC or any tribunal for that matter has yet to rule on the case which the lawyer just submitted with those same anecdotes from your critical organizations, it is only common sense to treat them as what they truly are at this moment, no more than allegations: all killers hired by police / police posing as vigilantes are allegations; war targeting only the poor is also allegation. See War on Drugs and its allegations section, even the lead in the Mexican Drug War separates the facts from the criticisms. While it is important to include those observations from reliable sources, there is a place for them in the article to keep the neutral tone. The advocacy can take a break for actual wiki nonpartisan and balanced writing especially now that the charges have been brought up in the international court which has jurisdiction over what the Drug War is or isn't, not those organizations and especially not the media which this article has been heavily slanted to from even 9 months before an actual ICC charge was filed.--RioHondo (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Address the issue here before you revert and insist on your lead.--RioHondo (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You can't delete the lead section. If you have any suggestions of improvements, you should state them here. zzz (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The allegations do not belong in the lead as this section is supposed to provide a neutral overview of the main points of the topic per WP:LEAD. The allegations, until the ICC or any court rules on them, belongs to the allegations/criticism section. The old lead showing its basic apolitical definitions and components should suffice and i'm also planning to expand this controversy-and-criticism-laced article which at its current version shows more unconfirmed charges than anything of any value to readers.--RioHondo (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You can expand the article if you like, just don't delete sourced info. zzz (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not deleting any sourced info but only placing them where they belong. Meanwhile, will closely follow ICC developments.--RioHondo (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources decide what is a "neutral overview". No reliable sources support your edit. zzz (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You need consensus to remove the lead section. It summarisies the article and covers the most notable aspects. Anyone is free to add anything missing. It makes no sense moving it as you have done, creating repetition etc. So I am restoring it again (and will continue to do so). zzz (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

As someone who introduced the new lead, the consensus for it is yours to make. Restore old stable and neutral lead with the allegations properly placed in its own section.--RioHondo (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Project High-Value Targets

I removed the new section "Project High-Value Targets" added by User:RioHondo. It would need to be entirely rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's standards, WP:BLP in particular. zzz (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Pls do advise who in the list of notable high-value targets neutralized in the operation are still living persons. Do not remove sourced content.--RioHondo (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies equally to the recently deceased. Also, please stop removing the lead section. zzz (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dimaukom and Espinosa's death have been included in the article from way back. Stop removing the other notable drug casualties that i added which are well-sourced.--RioHondo (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have left your new section in, for someone else to clean up. And i left your addition to the lead about the official name. zzz (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Good. Although your entry in the lead would definitely need to be rewritten to clearly point out that those are all allegations which is why the ICC case is there to determine its truthfulness. Its own section also makes updating it easier as the ICC case develops.--RioHondo (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are allegations there, but I think it is pretty clear who said what. I don't know what you think is in need of clarifying. zzz (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

That section needs a rewrite, it looks like an advertizement. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"High profile victims" is giving it context not provided for in the sources. The sources just say they are high value targets who were killed/arrested/surrendered under the Operation or Project HVT of the PNP. Im not sure how this could possibly be seen as an advertisement as any conflict has its own list of notable casualties (The Inquirer's Kill List does that exactly, except it mixes notable and well-covered HVT deaths with WP:MILL incidents). IMO, these cases are more notable and received more media attention than, say those in List of journalists killed under the Arroyo administration which is not advertisement either but a plain listing of notable cases of casualties.--RioHondo (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That section is in violation of WP:UNDUE and is in under contention from now two editors. It fits on its own article not in this one. The current article is already WP:TOOLONG and that section tints the article in a rather flowery scent. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs to go. For example, in the first paragraph: The second sentence is a police quote with the quotation marks removed. The third sentence contains a police quote missing its quotation marks: "956 validated high-value targets" [in quotes in the ref, i.e. "956 "validated HVTs""], followed by WP:Original Research: "identified by the national police since the start of the campaign". The following sentence repeats a police claim, as reported in this source, as fact. Etc. Also, it is ludicrous that various randomly selected "alleged member of the drug syndicate"s each have a separate section in this article with their name in the heading. As I stated before, WP:BLP applies. zzz (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Philippine Daily Inquirer, ABS-CBN News, Rappler, GMA News, The Manila Times, The Philippine Star, those are the sources for the section. I don't know what you meant by rose-colored glasses or what exactly is being disputed in those reliable sources. Quotation marks? Simple. PNP claims are PNP claims and if they also come up with a List of Mexico's 37 most-wanted drug lords on top of their high-value targets, that is their prerogative, and the article simply has to report them based on reliable sources. Actually when I get the time, i will compile and create a separate list including a List of politicians killed in the Mexican Drug War too to properly document the notable casualties for future reference or use. That's how it's done, specific cases or operations to give more insight or depth to the article or topic.--RioHondo (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This edit by User:RioHondo made the OR issue worse, and removed the maintenance template added by User:Shhhhwwww!! zzz (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Advertisement? Neutrality dispute? Article size? Now Original Research? As far as the above reliable sources are concerned, the section is notable and well supported. It is also the only portion in the whole article that actually discusses the govt operations in the drug war. The earlier concerns have also been addressed. Suggest ways to improve the scope of the article instead of arbitrariness or censorship.--RioHondo (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have found some more "original research":

Edgar Allen Alvarez... was reportedly being served a warrant for selling shabu in the prison when he allegedly threw a grenade which prompted the officers to fire back. The PNP was able to recover the fragmented grenade, a caliber .45 pistol, a caliber .38 revolver, ammunition and a pack of suspected dried marijuana leaves from the raid.

The ref states:

"The suspect allegedly threw a grenade at the police but it failed to explode. A member of the raiding team then pulled his .45-pistol and repeatedly shot the victim, killing him on the spot. The raiding team recovered one .45-caliber pistol, a .38-caliber revolver and one pack of dried leaves suspected to be marijuana."

— [9]

@RioHondo: explain why the article states the "PNP was able to recover the fragmented grenade". zzz (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Make sure to check all the sources cited. You can try to clean it up or move one reference up, but do not remove the rest of the cited entries.--RioHondo (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The succeeding ref states:

Alvarez was killed during today's raid after he tried to fight Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group operatives. Thursday's raid also yielded a fragmented grenade, caliber .45 pistol, caliber .38 revolver, ammunition and a pack of suspected dried marijuana leaves.

–ABS-CBN source

So, you just choose whichever version you prefer, then? zzz (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It's called collating all the relevant information in those multiple reliable sources to arrive at a more comprehensive narration especially when you have nothing but those sources to rely on for information. As I said, you can rewrite or clean up the bits and pieces, but censorship is never the way to go.--RioHondo (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Right, so now you are arguing that it was "a more comprehensive narration", although, as anyone can easily verify, that is complete and utter nonsense. zzz (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You are arguing on the content of reliable sources. Ref A says he came home with two bananas, a can of soda and baking powder. Ref B says he also bought a pack of cigarettes. It's combining the two sources to arrive with the pack of cigarettes, two bananas, a can of soda and baking powder. It seems that over-analyzing and arguing on the sources is your thing. I see it as yet another attempt to control the topic and to discredit and censor or cherrypick the sources as evident in the article's history and as observed by more and more users here. Calling the reliable sources as complete and utter nonsense just to remove them is a clear manifestation of WP:BADPOV. Enjoy your article.--RioHondo (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I alleged that Signedzzz is cherrypicking on the HVT matter before and I will comment over this issue, unfortunately, with a temporary technical problem on Wikipedia due to server testing, I am not able to reply yesterday. I agree with Signedzzz cherrypicking and having a negative POV on the HVT topic.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP

Mayor Rolando Espinosa is not described as a "HVT" in any of the sources used in the section about his death, so I restored it to its original position in the chronology. As far as I am aware, none of the other "HVTs" have been convicted of anything either, so they should not be listed here either (alive or dead) - especially when the "facts" have been altered (see section above). zzz (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You must have missed the first reference cited in the section which states:

The HVTs listed as arrested or surrendered in the presentation include Albuera Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr and alleged Cebu drug lord Franz Sabalones. – Rappler.com

–Rappler source

So, I am right that they haven't been convicted of anything, then? (You found one source with the police calling Espinosa a HVT. My point was, of course, that none of the various sources already in the section about his death make any reference to this.) By the way, WP:BRD means you stop adding your edit after 2 editors disagree with it. zzz (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: The article discusses a very controversial topic, and you are that you may be biased on the HVT thing. Please avoid bringing neutrality issues into the article. You said that there is disagreement with the HVT section, but you are possibly biased on your point with Rolando Espinosa being a HVT. RioHondo is just adding new info about HVTs, but you hold a very strong bias. This activity is becoming disruptive, and constitute edit warring. But with other editors, like Shhhhwwww!!, Agila81 and others, not just RioHondo also in the dispute involving what you point out as BLP and OR issues, when it may not be, an arbitration case about the editing disputes here in the Philippine Drug War may be raised as a last resort.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko: Firstly, BLP is non-negotiable in Wkipedia. This means that we do not label people as drug traffickers with no evidence. Secondly, no one has agreed with the disputed edit. Thirdly, User:Shhhhwwww!! also disagrees with the edit. Please read the discussion (and see WP:BRD for what is supposed to happen in this case, when multiple editors disagree with an edit). zzz (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, this is not about if a person has been convicted or not. At least it is not the definition of HVT as cited in the sources. I don't know why you have to over-analyze the definitions when Wikipedia is supposed to only state what the sources say and not add any more meaning or conclusion other than what's stated. If the Mexican authorities have their List of Mexico's 37 most-wanted drug lords, it's not up to us to verify each one and check if they are really drug lords or have already been convicted. Our job is to only report them as they come out. So PHL authorities came up with 956 high-value targets that they say are "drug lords," so be it and just report. What's there to analyze in those reliable sources?--RioHondo (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@TagaSanPedroAko:. That section is aethetically displeasing. It must be removed. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate reason to remove the HVT section. Somehow it is kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The claims there are backed by sources, and it is no way can be deleted, unless it violates a content policy. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Organized criminal groups that the Philippine government fights against

• Triad:
  • 14K Triad
  • Bamboo Union
  • Sun Yee On
• Yakuza:
  • Yamaguchi-gumi
• drug cartels:
  • Sinaloa Cartel
• drug syndicates:
  • Kuratong Baleleng
• gangs:
  • Bahala Na Gang — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.173.183.45 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

None of the above feature in any or the vast majority of WP:RS on the subject.zzz (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

information about operations : https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/03/04/lawless-group-member-drug-suspect-nabbed-in-lanao-del-norte-sultan-kudarat/

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/zamboanga/local-news/2018/03/03/crime-syndicate-member-falls-591773

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2017/08/07/dela-rosa-kuratong-baleleng-planning-retaliation-557115

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2017/10/03/pdea-bares-3-big-drug-syndicates-operating-ph-567464

I think "Suspected drug users, dealers and distributors" covers it. zzz (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Does this cover more than just the (extrajudicial) murders ?

If so, maybe the murders should have a separate article (I've not looked into this page yet, so honest question as topic..). If it covers mainly the murders, isn't the pages title a horrible euphemism (ie naming something in a way to hide the ugly reality)? I realise article pages are to use the name generally used eg in the mass media... dunno a) if this is the name generally used (for the murders), or b) whether there might be cases where a more descriptive page name might still be called for. Sean Heron (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The killings (suspected drug users and drug lords) is an integral part of the article. Western media often refers to this anti illegal drug campaign of President Rodrigo Duterte as a "drug war" while local media refers to the campaign as "kampanya kontra droga" (Campaign against drugs) or more specifically Oplan Tokhang (Operation Tokhang), the controversial component of the campaign, when it comes to the police policy in arresting suspected drug addicts/pushers (using violent force when the suspect to be arrested fights back with a deadly weapon.; Critics are suspicious of such claims and there are reports police planting a gun near the suspect's corpse to frame them). But yes the article ideally covers every aspects such as international reactions, the non-violent methods (some still controversial nevertheless) against illegal drugs.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Though it is disputed by the government that the killings were part of the official police operations but still linked to Duterte's drug war nevertheless due to his comments encouraging killings. Articles were created for some high profile killings.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Shooting of Kian delos Santos
  • Kidnapping and killing of Jee Ick-Joo

Maybe I wasn't very precise - I guess my point is - "Vigilante murders of Drug-users and pushers", which is not disputed by any reliable sources I've seen / read, seems to warrant either its own space (ie article), or since it is I think very specific feature in relation to Duterte and, as you say, his encouragements, should be reflected in the articles title.

As it stands, I have the feeling the title does not reflect the horror of killing ~ innocents.... Sean Heron (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to the title, I can't think of any alternatives that would reflect the killings of drug suspects. Perhaps formally start a move discussion, maybe a more satisfactory title could be thought of.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

China, Japan, and the United States do not "support" the Drug War

The assertion that the policy of killing drug users is supported by the "majority of the local population, and representatives.... China, Japan and the United States" clearly needs to have a reference. That is an absurd claim to suggest that leaders of Japan and the United States support the policy of extra-judicial killings. Unless there is evidence of such support, that sentence needs to be removed. Darryl.jensen (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The references are in Philippine_Drug_War#International. Note that the words "the policy" refers to the drug policy as a whole, not just the killings. I moved a sentence to make that clearer. zzz (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs better clarification and/or cites in the lead; see MOS:LEADCITE. On a somewhat related point, in the sentence in the International section reading "United States President Donald Trump has disputed this, saying that executions are necessary to crackdown on drug use.^{[158][159][160]}", it is not clear to me just exactly what the "this" in "disputed this" is referring to. That was unclear even on this earlier insertion elsewhere in the article; surely that did not mean to say that the U.S. disputed that the ICC had announced they were making an examination. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That section needs a lot of work. zzz (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox_casualties

• See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Infobox_casualties zzz (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz has been persistent in deleting arrests information in the infobox within this article. First, he deleted said information without a reason (link) , subsequently reverting my restoration of the deleted information thrice.

First he argues that "arrests are not casualties" (1st revert link).

His 2nd revert is particularly interesting in that he tries to make remove the same arrests information with the reason "this is a better workaround".

To restore the information without using a mere revert, I tried fixing the infobox by replacing the generic casualties parameter with the more accurate fatalities (link), yet he reverted it again with a reason "it's still under "CASUALTIES"" (3rd revert link).

Should he have a problem with arrests being under casualties, instead of making mere reverts, he should report that issue to the template editors as the arrests text output is automatically placed within a "casualties" section of the infobox. Besides, a March 31, 2019 revision by template editor User:Frietjes had the fatalities and arrests parameters used to fix the conflicting casualties and arrests parameters of the infobox. —Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've made it really simple for you all along, and I'll try again one more time: Arrests are not casualties, and they don't get treated as such in infoboxes that list casualties. zzz (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not control how arrests are being placed under "casualties", but the information is vital and must be retained within the infobox until a template editor makes a separate "Arrests" section. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You think the template editors made a mistake by not making arrests as important or more important than killings by police? zzz (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I was only interested in the infobox having to include the arrests information, which as I said, has a bug in that casualties1 and casualties2 cannot be used alongside arrests as casualties1 will prevent arrests text output from being displayed. But you keep on deleting the arrests information. I added | casualties_label = Arrests and casualties to hopefully settle things. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a bug, now, is there? zzz (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

By renaming this section as "Trolling", you are showing how vindictive you are. Yes, I accept I overlooked that casualties_label. But now that I have added it to hopefully appease you, you still insist of removing the said information. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"Drug War" vs. "drug war"

This is a WP:BRD discussion following on the edit summary in this edit. Please see WP:CAPS and Sentence case.

I am aware that the lead sentence of the article reads:

The Philippine Drug War refers to the drug policy of the Philippine government under President Rodrigo Duterte, who assumed office on June 30, 2016. According to former Philippine National Police Chief Ronald dela Rosa, the policy is aimed at "the neutralization of illegal drug personalities nationwide."

(Note: that ought to read: "The term Philippine Drug War refers to [...]". A term can refer to some referant, a drug war, or a Drug War, cannot)

If the two terms drug war and Drug War are intended to convey a difference in meaning by their difference in capitalization, that is a bit too high context for a Wikipedia article. The difference in meaning ought to be conveyed in a different way. For example, if the term Philippine Drug War refers to a drug policy of the Philippine government, then the the word policy or something like government policy or that policy might convey the intended difference in meaning from the meaning of the un-capitalized term drug war better than the difference in capitalization does. I propose that the un-capitalized term drug war be used in this article to convey its usual meaning, and that the the drug policy of the Philippine government under President Rodrigo Duterte be distinguished from this by some means other than by a difference in capitalization. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"If the two terms drug war and Drug War are intended to convey a difference in meaning by their difference in capitalization" - no, they are not, to my knowledge at least. I see no reason why the article should not use upper case. The Philippine Drug War is not an actual war, it is just the name of the Philippine drug policy. zzz (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I made a wikilinking error above. Instead of linking WP:CAPS (a disambiguation page), I meant to link MOS:CAPS (a part of the Manual of Style which is linked from that disambiguation page). The lead paragraph there reads:

Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

There is your reason why the article should not use upper case. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

So, you found the talk page, and now you found a reason for your edit: well done! See how that works? As a Wikipedia admin, these are things you would normally be expected to be familiar with. Happy editing! zzz (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I did some looking around, and I'm wondering whether this article should be tagged {{POV}}. I understand that the topic is controversial, but this article seems to flout WP:IMPARTIAL. I see that this article was created by @Shhhhwwww!!:, not by you (Signedzzz), but I wonder if you might know where the article title came from. The article as it stands today is pretty far from in content and in thrust from its initial state (see here). As far as I can see, the title of the article and what it terms the Philippine Drug War is referred to by the Philippine government as "the govrnment's anti-illegal drug campaign" (see Memorandum Circular No. 53 s.2018, November 12, 2018, Office of the President of the Philippines). I'm guessing that the term and the article title might have come from a source with a viewpoint in opposition to that government campaign, to some parts of it, and/or to the way in which it is being conducted. Do you have any idea where the term Philippine Drug War came from and why that term was chosen as the article title? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there was a discussion about the title, which had a lot of contributors. For some reason, it's not there now, and I can't see any archives. zzz (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll chime in, the actual campaign is referred to as the Duterte's "war on drugs". This is the term used by the media even the international media (alternatively drug war, lower case). Probably the current title was derived from the Mexican Drug War (which is more of an insurgency). Also the war on drugs was already present in the previous admin minus the killings of drug suspects.

The "war" was also known as Oplan Tokhang after the most prominent component of the campaign or Double Barrel which includes the door to door campaign of the police. But these terms seemed to be phased out in favor of just "war on drugs" or "drug war" in lower caps. At best "Philippine Drug War" is an informal name used to refer to Duterte's campaign Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I left the Philippines in June of 2018, have not followed this at all since then and did not follow it much prior to that. Some googling for Oplan Tokhang quickly turned up quite a few links. One which looked useful is this, dated January 28, 2018, and from what could be called a RS. I remember lots of controversy about this long prior to 2018, though. This other search result dated May 25, 2018 seems knowledgeable; though it is not from a RS, it does contain links to earlier articles by RSs which look useful (e.g., [10][11][12]). I see in the new talk page section below that you are trying to clean up this article. I don't really have anything concrete to offer at this point and I have plenty of other demands on my time so I'll put my concerns expressed above aside and leave you to it. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

New Section

Thank you for all information on what is go on in the Philippines,national papers around the world have giving little attention to what'is really going on in the Philippines,I think the drugs war is a excuse for the president to get rid of all opponents to his despicable,despotic regime,the true death figures will never be found,government says 13500 drugs deaths,when you talk to the right people in the towns and villages the figures add up to 32000 thousand,yet you can still buy any drug cheaper than before Duterte started his massacres of population of the drug takers,making no distinction between the people who needed them for health to stay ALIVE, or the pushers and dealers WHO still deserved a fair trial,not to shot down like a rabid dog,it must be nice to have a friend like Trump,at least conngress can see through the Philippines mad man.

thank you conngress alan summer. - 86.31.96.229 10:35, 16 December 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by F-Lambda (talk • contribs)

Reorganization

I would like to get feedback on how we could make the article more organized. In the current state the article is all over the place understandably because this is a big issue under Duterte's Presidency. I believe it might benefit the article if this provides an overview of the campaign against drugs.

I suggest the article to be sectioned like this:

• History – Landmark events which had concrete effects on the campaign like its brief halt, when it started and UN actions. Keep rhetorics to the minimal despite gaining widespread backlash if it didnt affect the drug war that much
• Operations – Discuss how the police conducts operation from the state's point of view like how they often alleged that the drug suspect fought back. Also while the killings are the most prominent part don't forget other non-fatal operations like how the customs, PDEA operates. Oplan Double Barrel standard operation procedures goes here.

Also include observations and allegations of third parties on how government agents operate.

• Major Incidents – Here goes major events. We should delineate what constitutes as major events. Notable operations and casualties. Summary only since they would meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines anyway. Those which caused Duterte himself to react in a concrete way.
• Reactions – Actions against the war on drugs in general. As much as possible limit to concrete reactions including protest actions. Include here the UNHRC resolutions too. Also include foreign support like China's involvement.
• In popular culture – As is.

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I started introducing content for the meantime without overhauling the current layout that much for now.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead is awful. Not only is too long, but it badly needs a re-write for tone and overall flow. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Dubious-Discuss

Opening up this section to discuss the tag proposed by OjuzKiopo on the lead of the article. Godzilladude123 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's discuss. Take a chair and listen.

It's dubious....yessir. The president Ronaldo Duderte which is shown at left at the very start of the article...said it...he admitted half-wordly even before being elected.

Let me quote the article itself.

"In a campaign speech on April 27 to business leaders, he said his presidency would be "a bloody one", but that he would issue "a thousand pardons a day" to police and soldiers accused of human rights abuses, and would also issue a presidential pardon to himself for mass murder at the end of his six-year term."

He is the head of state (which is a figurehead for that matter in many places). His speeches are more or less public and diffused to the whole country etc...so he is a figurehead but also a spokeman.

About drugs he said about drugs "Do not do it in my country because I will really kill you. That is a commitment."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Duterte%27s_Fifth_State_of_the_Nation_Address Here is speech

He also said: "Hitler massacred three million Jews... there's three million drug addicts. I'd be happy to slaughter them,"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37515642

He also admitted involvement in Davao Death squads.

Then to quote Benigno Aquino III "Killing a person is against the law. The President has been firm in the belief that no one is above the law. We must not resort to extralegal methods."

www.manilatimes.net/palace-cbcp-rights-activists-gang-up-on-davao-mayor/73307/

Is it that much neglected by authorities? Maybe Debold Sinas may've denied extra-judicial killings, maybe he said he would prosecute them, but answers to those claims vary. --OjuzKiopo (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

OjuzKiopo, I believe you have mistaken the purpose of the Dubious-Discuss tag. No one is saying that the police are innocent. The tag should only be used to discuss the accuracy of citations and references, not whether or not what the PNP said is true or false. The PNP did deny the allegations of the EJK, that's something that they said hence why it is in the article. If you want to challenge what the police said, you can insert statements and references that you have found. But don't use the Dubious-Discuss tag. Godzilladude123 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The Phillipines' authorities do not deny it. They do not. The more they do is passively not refering to those. I have not found them...it's just contradicting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjuzKiopo (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there are statements from the PNP and authorities denying EJKs. As seen here:

• https://www.philstar.com/nation/2020/09/08/2040748/pnp-chief-no-ejk-under-duterte
• https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/10/06/extrajudicial-killings-Duterte-govt.html
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/26905842

If you want, we can replace the current references with these newer ones. There is no need for the tag. Godzilladude123 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing?

Should keep an eye on sources if the "drug war" officially ends. So far most sources are suggest Marcos would be "continuing" it. On the other hand it seems that there is a policy shift to a campaign that is not different to illegal drug policy of Duterte's predecessors. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Also how should we add information regarding President Marcos' pronounce policy shift? In an aftermath session? I am not sure on how to approach this to be honest. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)