Talk:2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao expansion and inclusion plebiscite

Organization of the article

This article must be reorganized. After seeing the map and side bar, I realized that the article refers to Philippines. But other than that, the article explains nothing. There should be an introductory sentence as well as a background section explaining the reason of the plebiscite. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao expansion and inclusion plebiscite, 2001. 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/20160417084451/http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_11/RA09054.pdf to http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/ra_11/RA09054.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No Consensus - Discussion is very stale and doesn't seem to have settled on any specific option. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao expansion and inclusion plebiscite → 2001 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite – To align with the 2019 Bangsamoro autonomy plebiscite, a pithier title than this one. That 2019 plebiscite replaced the political structure created by this plebiscite, plus giving a definite name for the region: "Bangsamoro". In 2001, the "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" already existed; curiously, you can't call it simply as "Muslim Mindanao", but either by its whole name or by "ARMM". (I believe local media and Wikipedia has mostly followed this nomenclature.) In 1989, when the ARMM was made, there was an understanding that no plebiscite can ever be inclusive to merit the simple name of "Muslim Mindanao", hence they used "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" instead of "Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao" (compare "Republic of the Philippines") as there would always be parts of Muslim Mindanao that is not included in the ARMM. Now, while this plebiscite includes places outside of Mindanao (primarily Palawan), the WP:NC of this exercise was that it happened mostly in Mindanao. Once the 1989 plebiscite is created, if the RM is approved, it should also also be named as "1989 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite". Howard the Duck (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• (Weak?) Support. Neutral. "Mindanao" alone sounds vague but due to the lack of better names, I guess we'll go with it? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Palawan participated in this plebiscite which is obviously not in Mindanao. The article talks about expansion of a specific region (the ARMM) and did not cover the entire Mindanao electorate either. If it's an issue with the title length, i suggest initiating an RM for Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as with Bangsamoro and Cordillera (region) which i proposed at 1998 Cordillera Autonomous Region creation plebiscite to the short form (and therefore more likely WP:COMMONNNAME, not WP:OFFICIAL), of Muslim Mindanao.--RioHondo (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Add: Sorry, I didn't read your explanations earlier for why the article should use Mindanao even when Palawan was included in this exercise or why Muslim Mindanao is an unlikely alternative. I still stand by my vote tho, inaccurate to use Mindanao when not all places there participated or intended to be part of the autonomous region. The term "Mindanao autonomy" should be avoided as it inaccurately suggests the breakup of the entire southern PH island, just as neither "Luzon autonomy" nor "Northern Luzon autonomy" should be used to describe the Cordillera autonomy polls as that would suggest a major disintegration or secession when the facts are they were only for specific regions within those two major island groups. As with "Muslim Mindanao" usage, again we go by WP:COMMONNAME or common short forms, regardless of the WP:OFFICIAL reasoning for or against its use. We still refer to Region I as Ilocos Region even when we know the Ilocos people also dominate Region II, Abra, Benguet and Northern Central Luzon. Muslim Mindanao is also the short form used in their legislations, those Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Acts. So it's either we go with this common short form to address the title length, or stick to WP:OFFICIAL ARMM.--RioHondo (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the Manila Standard's headline on 1989 plebiscite day: "Moment of truth: Mindanao plebiscite". That's one newspaper but it's a good bet other newspapers on that day had similar pithy headlines/sub-headlines. In 2001, this was the Philippine Daily Inquirer's headline "ARMM PLEBISCITE: Results show 'overwhelming' no". By that time, the ARMM already existed, unlike in 1989.

Okay, Mindanao is not an LGU. For lack of a better term it's an island group, and its usage here should mean that the plebiscite occurred there, or at least most of it. "Muslim Mindanao" is the "official short form" of "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao"; "ARMM" is, just as how "Region V" is the short form for "Bicol Region". Fine, you can call it "Bicol", but for lists in websites and offline material, it's always listed as "Bicol Region" or "Region V" just as "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" is always listed like that, or as "ARMM". As long as ARMM existed, "Muslim Mindanao" was never the short name used either by WP:NC or by the people themselves, unlike plain old "Bicol". I'd have to tag that with {{fact}}. I've never seen newspaper headlines using "Muslim Mindanao" (compare to "Bangsamoro"), sure, "ARMM" yes, but not that.

Now, with that being said, I'd be okay with "2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao plebiscite" (for the simple fact we should only use acronyms sparingly) as the second choice name, while should 1989 article be created, it would still be at "1989 Mindanao plebiscite". Howard the Duck (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This was a plebiscite concerning a region, not 1/3 of the entire PH. Mindanao might have been convenient as a news headline but im sure you agree as an encyclopedia, our article titles must be accurate and precise enough as Muslim Mindanao and Mindanao are two different things. Just as referendums or anything that happened in Central Luzon can not be treated or passed off as an entirely Luzon event, particularly when it deals with politics such as this. The ARMM and CAR were inexistent when those plebiscites were conducted, true, but the idea of a Muslim Mindanao and Cordillera region were their goals and have existed long before their creation. Cordillera has always been a geographic region, while Muslim Mindanao can trace its history to the Moro Province. If you disagree with renaming those regions to their short forms then we'd really have to stick with the current title for these related articles. If you ask me, those  "Administrative/Autonomous Region" prefix or suffix are unnecessary because their base names are sufficient and are their main search terms anyway. Some sources call it by the official Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, but some make shortcuts and call it simply as Muslim Mindanao region or The region in Muslim Mindanao, others are creative like: The Muslim autonomous region in Mindanao. Same with Cordillera. Cordillera Administrative Region, Cordillera region, The region of Cordillera, etc. You can even google them and you'll get many international media results that don't call this region by its long official name in their reports. If you combine all those sources, you'd have arrived at a commonality with regards to their name. And that is the WP:COMMONNAME which are concise and precise enough to differentiate Muslim Mindanao from 1/3 of the PH. Not even Department of Mindanao and Sulu (again unnecessary long official title which could be simply at Mindanao and Sulu]]) can pass for the entire Mindanao ;).--RioHondo (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Was the plebiscite held in Mindanao? Yes. Did WP:NC characterize it this way? Yes. Is this how the collective consciousness of the people remember this event? Yes, or usage of "ARMM". I believe you understand my thought process on naming this article.

The region known as Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was never referred to as "Muslim Mindanao" in its short form, just as how the Bicol Region is referred to as "Bicol". Either it's called "ARMM" or the entire name "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao". It's hard to find actual news articles of this plebiscite as it happened in 2001, but foreign website referred to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao as the "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" as per ReliefWeb (disaster coordination), and the Australian National University, and the Asia Foundation where they never use "Muslim Mindanao" in the second reference to refer to the ARMM, but they instead used "ARMM". Let's put to bed that "Muslim Mindanao" was the short name for this region just like "Bicol" is for the Bicol Region. It never was. I'd strongly oppose moving to "2001 Muslim Mindanao autonomy plebiscite" as outright failing WP:NC. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The vote was on adopting "Mindanao" as the title according to your RM not "Muslim Mindanao" which was merely suggested as an accurate and precise alternative. I still oppose the usage of Mindanao as referring to the Muslim autonomous region. And Oppose the usage of acronyms like ARMM too. We stick to how the region article is named then--RioHondo (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your "accurate and precise alternative" fails WP:NC, and if "Mindanao" is imprecise, more so is "Muslim Mindanao" because it can be argued not every one from "Muslim Mindanao" was included in the plebiscite. We can never know the entirety on who belongs to "Muslim Mindanao", some Taguig residents may say they identify as one! At least with "Mindanao", this is how WP:NC called it, this how the people remembered it. The 2001 plebiscite didn't only cover the areas covered by ARMM. For lack of a better branding like "Bangsamoro", "Mindanao" suffices, unless you'd include in the title every province and city that was included in the plebiscite. FWIW, the 2019 plebiscite didn't just cover the future Bangsamoro, but people still called it as the "Bangsamoro plebiscite". This is the same case in the 1989 plebiscite, and less so in the 2001 plebiscite (because the ARMM already existed). Howard the Duck (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking out the base name from long official titles is not rocket science my friend. Government can call it the Science City of Muñoz or the Island Garden City of Samal, but regardless of the cosmetics they put into those names, the only real proper names worth remembering are Muñoz and Samal as with Muslim Mindanao and Cordillera. Fine, it could be just Mindanao, but that is ambiguous and unprecise so we go with Muslim Mindanao just as we go with disambiguation in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija and Samal, Davao del Norte. A discussion on the NC of an article would always involve discussion of related articles, particularly their main articles, their roots.--RioHondo (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly the official name of Caloocan is "The Historic City of Caloocan". In short form, it is "Caloocan", universally (regardless on the spelling between "C" vs. "K").

The official name is the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (LOL again I'm pleading, notice it's not "Autonomous Region OF Muslim Mindanao". All of your examples above use the preposition "OF". PLEASE NOTICE THAT IN ARMM'S CASE, IT IS "IN", NOT "OF".). The short name is "ARMM", or you can call it as the "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao". It has never been called simply as "Muslim Mindanao". To use that term to refer to the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is not what the various WP:NC do, and we shouldn't do that.

The 1989 and 2001 plebiscites are widely understood to have been held in Mindanao. This is indisputable. The WP:NC called it this way. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Not gonna argue on semantics nor its WP:OFFICIAL interpretration, but combine those that refer to the region as your "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" with sources and books that refer to it as simply Muslim Mindanao region or Muslim Mindanao Autonomous Region and even Autonomous Region OF Muslim Mindanao or Autonomous Region FOR Muslim Mindanao. Two words remain constant in all those references to the region in GBooks and IMHO, that makes the WP:COMMONNAME. And there is also GNews with foreign press using any of those combinations as i have already explained earlier. You can't force all writers and journalists around the world to think the same way you do as to what to call this region. It is just a name just as the Americans didn't bother to check on demographic accuracy before naming 80% of entire Mindanao including lumad territories as Moro Province in 1903. The Bukidnons and Manobos must have been really pissed at the time. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL no. "Muslim Mindanao" was never the common name of this region. I'd even see more instances of "CL" to refer to "Central Luzon" in newspaper headlines pre-internet than "Muslim Mindanao" to refer to "ARMM"; they'd even use "Mindanao" instead. Come on, to insist on this despite overwhelming odds is shocking. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidently, many English language writers had no issue in using this short form taken off the long official title anyway (not some made up name), in their works. Nothing shocking about short forms if you ask me, they are found in many written literature but again that is an argument for the main article not this one ;).--RioHondo (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting things; you know that's not even true. For Google search results "Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao" spit out 85.7k results, "Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao" 24.1k, and "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" is a runaway winner with 672k. It's a no contest, and use of any other prepositions can be attributed to mistakes. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not gonna dwell on this argument on History City of Caloocan vs. Historic City in Caloocan vs. Historic City for Caloocan, cos im pretty sure i already made my case clear for the use of the base name Caloocan, a sure winner that beats those three choices, and it even beats the extremely popular Caloocan City by 7M. I wonder why? Not even gonna exert any more effort on this debate as this isnt even the right place for this ;).--RioHondo (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@RioHondo: I feel like the article Department of Mindanao and Sulu should be split into two. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, i see that the article in its current form has the U.S. govt agency as its main focus. The administrative region or entity with its capital in Zamboanga City and its appointed officials and representatives in the PH Legislature are missing. But i prefer that those be added there instead with the article being converted into more about the administrative jurisdiction than just an agency.--RioHondo (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support for Cordillera plebiscite and Oppose for "Muslim Mindanao plebiscite, for the reason already mentioned above. Although are there any policy that we should avoid using "ARMM", if its not that different from "Mimaropa" of Southwestern Tagalog Region. There are no other geographic region known as ARMM as far as I know.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the RM for the Cordillera plebiscite, please !vote there.

I'd be okay with "ARMM" but foreigners and even Filipinos might not know what it is. It's certainly better than "Muslim Mindanao". Also, please state your exact preference on what the article title should be. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Move to 2001 ARMM expansion plebiscite. I don't think familiarity of ARMM should be an issue, which could be remedied by redirects. Or at least move the 2001 plebiscite to "2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao expansion plebsicite". The "and inclusion" is superfluous. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think a move to 2001 ARMM expansion plebiscite could work as well. After all, ARMM currently redirects to the region. The only other ARMM in Wikipedia is a Usenet program. A quick search of ARMM on Google and DuckDuckGo shows the region. So I support this target. pandakekok9 (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"Expansion and inclusion" is actually inclusive. The old ARMM voted for expansion, those from outside of it voted for inclusion. Both of these words "expansion and inclusion" would have been better served with the word "autonomy". "2001 ARMM autonomy plebiscite" sounds stupid, if you know what "ARMM" means; that's why I decided to use "2001 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite", which was overwhelmingly used by the media covering this event. I'd oppose a title that includes "ARMM" and "autonomy". Howard the Duck (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose "2001 ARMM expansion plebiscite" alternative. For the nth time, there is no moving this article without considering its main and related articles. People need to step back for a moment and think about whether the main article at Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao should be moved first. How about those in Category:Elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao? CONSISTENCY per favore, we can't be doing it piece by piece all the time without regard for CONSISTENCY like in earlier transport RMs and even basic referendum color conventions lol ;)--RioHondo (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Both plebiscites were held in Mindanao. In 1989, there was no "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" to speak of. In 2001, the plebiscite was done both in and out of ARMM. In WP:RS, both plebiscites were said to have been done in Mindanao. You can't compare this to Category:Elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao because the 2001 plebiscite both occurred in the ARMM and out of it, while the elections in Category:Elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao exclusively happened in the ARMM. Take note the article isn't even at Category:Elections in Muslim Mindanao! Howard the Duck (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Elections IN Muslim Mindanao! We finally got to use your WP:OFFICIAL preposition lol. I stick to my original argument though that the 2001 plebiscite refers to only one specific region in that southern island group that was proposed to expand to, and which was participated in by at least one province outside that island, hence we stick to the region name not the island group which that one province was not a part of. And the 1989 creation plebisicte article should use the same name of the region that was created by it, not Mindanao which might have been convenient but totally inacurrate as only a fraction of the island participated in it.--RioHondo (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

On using "ARMM": I'm actually conflicted if it's acceptable to use "ARMM" in the article title without using the full name. We do use "ARMM" in article titles such as in "ARMM Regional Legislative Assembly", so it's not that we don't do it.

On using "expansion": Reading through the old news articles in the lead-up and results of the plebiscite, "expansion" was the keyword for the 2001 plebiscite, while "autonomy" is the keyword for 1989 plebiscite. All referendums in Category:Autonomy referendums have the word "autonomy" or something else similar in the article title such as "self-government" or "devolution". I suppose the word "autonomy" has to be there.

Ergo, why not "2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao plebiscite"? It satisfies spelling out what "ARMM" is, and has the word "autonomy" (or at least a variant of it). (I'd certainly not support "2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao autonomy plebiscite" as being redundant; the second-best choice is still "2001 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite".) For the 1989 plebiscite, it's dicier but let's figure that out once it is created. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with 2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao plebiscite.

Just in case it wasn't clear, I oppose the original proposed name that is 2001 Mindanao autonomy plebiscite, per RioHondo. pandakekok9 (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

2001 Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao plebiscite reduces the wordy title by three words so it should be good. If and when the 1989 creation plebiscite article is made, there might be a need for descriptive distinction between that and 2001 expansion. But the region title (wherever that may be) not the island group should be employed for both.--RioHondo (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose using 1989 instead of 2001 is good distinction enough? Couldn't really understand the opposition for the original proposal, as the plebiscite happened in Mindanao in both plebiscites. WP:RS called both as the "Mindanao plebiscite". Mindanao isn't even an LGU and perfectly describes what this was using 3 words instead of 10. I do suppose those who oppose want to be "exact" wording, hence "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao". Fine, no problem, only that we can't use "autonomy" in the title if we'd use "Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao" or "ARMM". Howard the Duck (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2021 (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.