Talk:2024 constitutional reform attempts in the Philippines

Requested move 30 January 2024

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. After much-extended time for discussion, there does not appear to be a consensus in favor of any specific move, and no support for the specific move proposed. The discussion of an appropriate title for this page can continue, but as a WP:RM matter, this has run its course. BD2412 T 21:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 Philippine political crisis → 2024 People's Initiative movement in the Philippines – Or to any title with "People's Initiative" in it. The root of the feud is the People's Initiative movement which started around this month. Reliable sources are not consistently labeling the tension as a politicla crisis at the moment.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Tambayan Philippines has been notified of this discussion. HueMan1 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there Hariboneagle927. There is no guarantee yet that the Philippines would consider the People's Initiative movement as the only way to move forward with Charter change. I don't see the need to rename the page to the people's initiative movement as it is only part of the umbrella term "Charter Change". I think that the current page name suits the current situation of Philippine politics. You can add the People's Initiative movement instead as a subpart of the political crisis article. talk 09:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't refer to what's happening as a "political crisis", at least not yet. WP:AT has to be grounded in WP:RS. With that being said, the suggested article title is not even the best title for it, nor can I think of a better suggestion. This has been going on since the denial of confidential funds of Sara Duterte by Congress in late 2023; the people's initiative is just the next "chapter" of this. If I can think of a better name, it'll be "Breakup of the UniTeam Alliance". Howard the Duck (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge? any relevant content to UniTeam (a summary on "Aftermath" subsection perhaps and People's Initiative or now. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I dunno. Honestly there's something that you can write to an article about this. You can also write separate articles about the confidential funds scandal and the current people's initiative. I usually write this as a background on the next electiom articles (see Binay hearings in 2016, Cayetano vs Velasco speakership battle in 2019, not to mention on the actual 18th Congress article, and run Sara run in 2022). Howard the Duck (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Crisis is indeed an overstatement. So far this is more about hot air than symptoms of an actual crisis such as institutional paralysis at the very least or whatever extraordinary measures are there. Borgenland (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely not a 'political crisis' or even a 'constitutional crisis'. I agree that this article should be renamed 'People's Initiative Movement in the Philippines'. Agila81 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would leave it alone, for now. The term "crisis" might seem strong, but this is a constitutional issue, so more appropriate than any other descriptor I can think of. As for the change of name, it probably WILL get a name change, but our job is use the WP:COMMONNAME that the sources use, so until they start labelling it more specifically, the general title is probably best left alone. Dennis Brown 2¢ 23:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  What WP:RS is calling this as a "crisis" (without quoting someone involved in this)? How is this even a constitutional crisis? For example, is the presidency vacant? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Then what word are they using? I'm not convinced "People's Initiative movement" is used enough to change to that at this time. This is a new issue, so it isn't unusual for the title to be less than perfect, but it still needs to be descriptive of the issue until RS does pick a label and stick with it. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Btw, the two words I see most in RS titles is "Constitutional Change" (or "Constitution Change", not always in that order), not People's Initiative. Secondarily, the next two words you see in most titles are the names Marcos and Duterte. At lease from the coverage coming here inside the Philippines. Dennis Brown 2¢ 09:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  The two words most associated with this is "People's Initiative". Just like what I explained above, it's much deeper than that and since we're going with descriptive titles, the current one does not fit the bill. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Associated is not the same thing as the reliable sources are using it. And what I'm reading here locally, they're not using that phrase that often, especially in titles. Farmer Brown - 2¢ 22:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  Is it "Constitutional Change" you are seeing or the vastly more popular "Charter Change" or "cha-cha"? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  The first three(!) references' titles in this very article use the exact phrase "Charter change", plus two more other references. On the actual references used on this article, the exact phrase "People's initiative" appears three times in the article. "Constitutional Change" is a breathtaking zero, and "Constitutional Change" is not far behind with zero as well. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm on mobile so not really able to cut and paste. You are seeing something different than I am seeing. The news aggregates here in the Philippines show a different picture than what you're seeing in the way of titles. Mainly what they're showing is a little bit of everything. There isn't a single title they're using. I guess my main point is we need to use something generic, like crisis but not as dramatic as crisis, if you insist, until the reliable sources pin a label on it. Right now they really don't have any singular label they're calling it. Or leave it alone for 2 weeks and they probably will have a label on it if it keeps gaining steam. Farmer Brown - 2¢ 02:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter what you are using. On this very article, the reference's titles have the exact phrase "charter change" and "people's initiative". There's even one reference having "UniTeam" in the title. These are just sources used in the article right now. I'm in the Philippines as well, as social media chatter alluded to the breakup of the UniTeam on what happened. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, I'm not paying attention to social media, and they aren't RS and shouldn't be used to establish COMMONNAME anyway. I guess we will just have to disagree and see what consensus forms. Dennis Brown 2¢ 03:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and if the article sources are showing one term over and over, but the bulk of the reliable sources aren't, then it may be a matter of WP:DUE, the sources in the article not reflecting the actual coverage. Theoretically, the two entities should be balances: actual coverage, and coverage shown in the article. Dennis Brown 2¢ 03:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah social media isn't WP:RS. Show us these supposed references though as I'm interested. Use those in this article. It's not as if the references used in the article aren't reliable enough or made up. We need something more concrete than "take my word for it". Howard the Duck (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm ok with changing the name, but the onus is on those wanting to change it to People's Initiative to demonstrate why that is appropriate. Honestly, I think we just need to wait a couple of weeks, continue the discussion and see what rises to the top. I'm not in a rush, I just don't want to jump the gun in a way that may frame the article as being biased. Looking at the actual article titles rather than copy (since we are looking at a title here) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (uses the phrase but not the title) [6], etc etc etc, there were just quick grabs, top articles in aggregates. This is NOT universally being titled "People's Initiative" and in fact, many articles don't use that phrase even in the prose, and certainly not in the title. I just don't think that is how the media is framing the issue, with that name, so using it wouldn't be NPOV, it would look like we are trying to frame it as something it isn't. Dennis Brown 2¢ 06:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The article heading is very misleading and not at all cognizant with the real-word situation. This is not a crisis - A crisis is defined as a catastrophic event or a time of intense difficulty. This matter meets neither of those characteristics. Suggestion that the article be renamed 'People's Initiative in the Philippines', with 'Controversy' or 'Opposition' being a sub-heading. Agila81 (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Good example of why I say waiting might be good, I've seen a lot of articles using the expression "Cha-cha" (obviously short for charter change) in the title over the last two days. Not saying that is a good title, just saying it is changing daily. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] and many more. Dennis Brown 2¢

• I tried looking at the constitution itself, I cannot find the word "People's initiative" in it just "initiative", so I can infer that there is WP:NPOV concern of using "people's initative" in the title which implies this is an organic movement by non-politicians. Maybe this could be renamed as "Constitutional reform under Bongbong Marcos", patterned after Constitutional reform in the Philippines, since all of the developments so far including the Mindanao secession is linked to the PIRMA-backed people's initiative in one way or another.Hariboneagle927 (talk)

  Might want to go with his real name instead of nickname if we went down that road. Just as 2024 Bongbong Cha-Cha would also be too informal ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The exact terms "People's initiative" and "constituent assembly" do not appear in the constitution (but "constitutional convention" does!); WP:OFFICIAL -- not because it is "official" means that's our sole option, moreso on naming. Whether it is an organic movement, or astroturfed, for any kind of initiative, Filipinos call it as "people's initiative". I'd imagine all previous initiative drives were not organic at all.

I like the term "Constitutional reform under Bongbong Marcos", but again, this has been brewing even before the current initiative drive, and more importantly, it's not the executive branch spearheading the move, but congressmen. All other cha-cha drives were spearheaded by the sitting president (Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo and Duterte). This one is different as Marcos seems to be playing referee, and is a passive participant to what's happening.

Again, if we're talking about the conflict between Marcos and Romualdez on one side, and the Dutertes and their allies on the other, this does not just talk about cha-cha. This was brewing for months, and cha-cha is get one facet of it. Whatever they are doing will continue even if we all forgot about cha-cha, or Mindanao secession, ICC arresting tokhang proponents, or whatever topic that they fight about. "Breakup of the UniTeam" it is. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see any singular name that fits, including the current one. Constitutional reform in the Philippines links to Federalism and Rodrigo Duterte. I'm not in love with that title either, seems forced, and doesn't give us anything to work off with a similar name, at least not that I can see. 2024 Phlippines constitutional debate? 2024 Philippines Charter debate? It's hard to pin it down. I agree, it isn't exactly a crisis yet, but Breakup of the Uniteam can't possibly pass WP:commonname. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This thing between Marcos and Romualdez on one side and the Dutertes on the other is much "bigger" than the constitution. The sooner we figure out that the constitution is just one facet of this, whatever this is, the faster we can figure out a common name for this.

Remember, their primary (some will say their sole) campaign promise was unity, and that didn't even last before the midterm election. The breakup of the Uniteam was not if, but when, and because of what. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Checking again, the disagreement is seem to be about determining the scope of the article. In my opinion is, that the People's Initiative is the main subject, the Mindanao secession are either a reaction to the initiative or side development. "Breakup of the UniTeam" is speculative since do note that thr Vice President is part of the alliance and the former president was never a solid ally of the incumbent. But I will insist that the article name should not have "political crisis" in it. So I would lean on any article name that has charter change, constitutional reform or people's initiativeHariboneagle927 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not a crisis, we're restricting this only to People's Initiative or cha-cha by any other means. I don't even classify this as a "movement" not WP:RS do. We have several attempts at a People's Initiative, and none were successful at the national level. Assuming people are still gathering signatures for ABS-CBN's franchise, I suppose labelling this as "2024 People's Initiative" is suspect.

Solution: Checking Category:Popular initiatives (Switzerland), they have a set article name for initiatives that went to the ballot. The Philippines has never done that at the national level, but we can try emulating their naming convention. Why not 2024 Philippine economic constitutional amendments initiative attempt? A mouthful, but as a descriptive title, you can't lose on that one. We can even have articles on previous attempts:

• 1997 Philippine constitutional amendments initiative attempt
• 2006 Philippine constitutional amendments initiative attempt
• 2021–present ABS-CBN franchise initiative attempt or Pirma Kapamilya
• 2024 Philippine economic constitutional amendments initiative attempt

We can probably discuss the ongoing thing with the Dutertes and Marcos/Romualdezes on another article. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the word "attempt" is necessary, but I think you are on to something. I came expecting to say something similar, but I would leave it as "xxxx constitutional amendments initiative" and note each as failure or success within the body of the article. The word "initiative" already means "an attempt", so is a bit redundant, as not all initiatives pass. I think enough sources are talking about the idea of "constitutional amendments initiative" (although not always in that order), enough so that it passes the WP:commonname sniff test. I would be on board for that, and possibly opening up articles on previous initiatives as well. And to clarify, I think "economic" isn't needed because there are other contentious issues at hand with the change. As for the ABS-CBN, I don't have enough experience with that issue to have an opinion as to a name or scope, but that is beyond what we are doing here anyway. Finally, I agree, shifting the focus away from the spat between the two politicians is a good idea, although that is a small part of the bigger article. I don't know if the spat (my word) is big enough for it's own article, but there is no deadline for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I lifted it from the coup d'etat articles vs. attempted coups ones. An initiative is not an initiative until the people vote for it; a coup d'etat is not a coup if they don't succeed, otherwise it is only an attempt. On hindsight, I hesitate to even label the ABS-CBN one as an attempt, as I don't know if they have actually submitted it to the COMELEC; I suppose "Pirma Kapamilya" works right for that.

The current initiative attempt is exclusively economic vs. the previous initiative attempts that included term extensions, abolishment of term limits and other political stuff. I suppose it is important to emphasize that.

Finally, if we're making this about the initiative, the EDSA-pwera article has to be merged into this one, or maybe even become the name of the article if the name is appropriated to the entire process. I suppose we can wait and see for that (name appropriation) to happen. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Would also be nice if COMELEC started numbering initiatives, just as Congress numbers bills. That could be a lot simpler, akin to Category:Initiatives in the United States. Why not "Philippine Initiative 1"? There was a local initiative in Quezon City, but I don't think they called it "Quezon City Initiative 1" or "Barangay Milagrosa Initiative 1". Howard the Duck (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we are defining "initiative" differently. An initiative, like a referendum, can pass, fail or stall out, in common language. (defined as: "an introductory act or step; leading action" [18] not a final product or outcome). It literally means an attempt at something, which is why I was saying it is redundant to add "attempt", because it already IS an attempt. Once it passes, then it is new law. As for adding "economic", I'm still against it because we don't need that level of specificity unless the sources are using that quite a bit, and at this stage (the beginning), there may be other changes made that aren't purely economic. Such as the fear of removing term limits, which I understand isn't on the table yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I am basing the naming convention on what Wikipedia already has, as all of these made it to a public vote. Would it still be an initiative if it didn't make that far? Were the PIRMA petitions of the 20th century for example, were initiatives? Same with coups and impeachments: were the Arroyo impeachment proceedings actual impeachments or were those just attempts, and if we'd make an article about that is it Impeachment of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, or just Impeachment attempts on Gloria Macapagal Arroyo?

I won't lose sleep on this, but we should settle on a "correct terminology" if we're using a descriptive title as WP:RM take too long and we don't want something like several RMs just to settle on a correct descriptive title (eg: Talk:New People's Army rebellion). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

In common usage, an "initiative" and an "impeachment" are implied attempts (ie: First impeachment of Donald Trump, failed) or a proposition like 2020 California Proposition 16, which failed. The word "initiative", "proposition", and even "impeachment" are not final results, they are explicit "attempts" to make change. The final outcomes are often separate, ie: a politician can be impeached, but that doesn't mean they are guilty, and even if found guilty, that doesn't guarantee they will be removed. They can be censured, demoted, removed, or punishment rendered moot, or barred from running for office in the future. The final judgement is the result, the impeachment is just the method used for getting to the final result. Just as an initiative is just a process to get to the final result: a change in the constitution. Another example is a criminal gets "arrested" and has "trial" even if they are 100% innocent and exonerated. These are processes, not results. Even if it fails to get majority support, and make a change, an initiative is still an initiative. I'm just trying to avoid future RMs. I think that taking our time on this one has worked to our advantage, as the situation is still developing, giving us a little more perspective, but we don't want to have to do it twice. If other articles have used "attempt", the error is theirs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There's some confusion re: Impeachment. For impeachment, it's more like an arraignment, or in impeachment terms, when the House of Representatives passes the articles of impeachment. Trump was successfully impeached, twice. What was a failure was the impeachment trial in the Senate which both failed. As per our article on impeachment, "Most commonly, an official is considered impeached after the house votes to accept the charges, and impeachment itself does not remove the official from office."

Ergo, in the Philippines, Erap, Gutierrez, Corona and Bautista were all impeached, but only Corona's impeachment trial resulted in a removal of office from the incumbent; Erap's trial did not finish and was overtaken by events, and Gutierrez and Bautista all resigned prior the impeachment trial. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

For unsuccessful impeachments, there is Category:Presidential impeachment inquiries in the United States. There is also Effort to impeach Pervez Musharraf.

The initiatives may be a different case altogether, but again, we do not have guidance on how initiative articles are named before they are put up for a public vote, or even scheduled for one. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a cut and dry situation with clear policy rules, but I still feel "attempt" is the lesser title for several reasons; it is longer, it is ongoing, it would make no sense and require another move if it passes, it isn't really more descriptive than leaving it out. Same for "economic", where it is an unnecessary word that may be rendered in accurate. I always look for titles that are concise, and more closely fit what people would search for, ie: common name, because that is what RS are using. Longer titles are not better titles. I was hoping others would opine, to form a consensus one way or another. I think you and I are about 80% on the same page, which isn't bad (and has been productive, imho), but we do need some other opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 7 March 2024 (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.

• I get why it had to be closed, but I do think we need to continue the discussion. As the discussion has progressed, I've concluded that the current title isn't sufficient as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should start another RM again. I suppose the rules do not prohibit that? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Before we start another RM, we probably need to agree on a title (we are almost there) and then start it with THAT name. There isn't a rush, but we both agree a better title is needed, as do others. Best to start an RM with a final name likely to have consensus than to try to hash it out in the middle of the RM. I am 100% on board with 2024 Philippine constitutional amendments initiative because it would line up with other potential article names and is the shortest name that describes exactly what it is, and it is consistent with the sources. I'm against adding extra words as of now, but still willing to hear other opinions and reconsider if provided evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably agree on dropping "attempt", but I'd insist on keeping the "economic" word as this is what makes this different from all other constitutional initiative attempts in the Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me think on it a day, maybe we can start an RM and advertise it widely with the options of 1. 2024 Philippine economic constitutional amendments initiative or 2. 2024 Philippine constitutional amendments initiative, or 3, leave the title as is, and let people rank their preferences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If we're presenting a list for people to choose from, let's have variations with the words "economic", "attempt" and those without. Like this:

1. 2024 Philippine economic constitutional amendments initiative attempt
2. 2024 Philippine economic constitutional amendments initiative
3. 2024 Philippine constitutional amendments initiative attempt
4. 2024 Philippine constitutional amendments initiative
5. Current name

This also means that for this article, we're restricting the topic to just the ongoing attempt on a People's Initative on economic constitutional amendments, and other issues such as Congressional denial of confidential funds for VP Duterte, conflict with Romualdez and Dutertes, ex-president Duterte advocating Mindanao secession, Quiboloy legal issues (yes, we're on this stage now! People forgot about this already lol), etc. should probably be not here. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I won't oppose it, but I will note that the more complicated you make it, the murkier the discussion and outcome. I'm a fan of binary options when possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

We literally had a similar discussion on L/MRT naming during the pandemic with up to seven choices and that turned out alright.

It also helps if there are more than 2 people in the discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

We should really change the name

With that in mind, there are two parallel movements to amend the constitution:

1. The initiative method, which seems to have stopped.
2. The "Resolution of Both Houses" or "RBH" method, which seems to be the preferred mode by now.

Both will end up in a plebiscite. There are 2 RBHs in regards to amending the constitution that have already been passed by the House:

1. RBH 6 calls for a constitutional convention
2. RBH 7 calls for Congress outright proposing actual amendments instead of calling for a convention.

Other RBHs related to amending the constitution are most not economically-oriented and are pending at the committee level.

Now, what should be our focus? Dennis and I have basically agreed that it should be constitutional change, but if you'd read through the discussion above, it does seem that the initiative method was gaining ground in February. Now it's March, and now it's the constituent assembly route. These are not essentially "identical", and the initiative petition may have different provisions from the RBHs (just like bills, either chamber may actually have different provisions on their own respective RBHs). Maybe in April, the initiative method restarts and we forget about the con-ass method as Congress is adjourned until April 29.

Suggestion:

1. Put initiative drives to "EDSA-pwera" article, as PIRMA was both behind that ad and the current initiative drive.
2. Put congressional methods to amend the constitution on this article, on a yet-to-be determined name. Can we use "Resolution of Both Houses No. 7" as a provisional article name? We did have Proclamation No. 1081. Once COMELEC sets the plebiscite date, then we can move to 202x Philippine constitutional plebiscite.
   1. If it was RBH No. 6 that was passed, with have separate articles on the elections of constitutional convention delegates, and the actual convention itself.

Howard the Duck (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, just jumping in; why can't we make this an article about 2024 charter change efforts in general, regardless of method? - MistahPeemayer (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems sensible. 2024 constitutional reform attempts in the Philippines or similar, to align with Constitutional reform in the Philippines (which should have this article as a main link). The current title seems a bit alarmist, constitutional change discussions are not by themselves a political crisis, and none of the sources in the article headline the issue as a political crisis. CMD (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

And we can always create more specific articles later. :D - MistahPeemayer (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also a prior suggestion from User:Hariboneagle927 renaming this to "Constitutional reform under Bongbong Marcos" and I prefer that over to a title that is "time bound". Howard the Duck (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason is one month there as a specific method they wanted to use to amend the constitution with. Then, that flamed out, then they switched to "Plan B". Who knows what will happen next time, so I guess a general article seems okay for the meantime. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I will reiterate that my position that the current title is very much unsuitable. No WP:RS is saying that the event covered by this article constitute as a "political crisis". Constitutional reforms seem to be the primary topic of this article. Much of the other side topics should be moved elsewhere: (Mindanao secession portion should be moved to Separatism in the Philippines as well as Duterte and his allies rhetoric that aren't directly related to the charter change moves.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2024

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: moved. Consensus was met for the new title being better than the move one. Probably will go into another move thereof! (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 Philippine political crisis → 2024 constitutional reform attempts in the Philippines – Per the discussions above, the current title is unsuitable and not in line with the descriptions used in sources. This is an ongoing event, and specific titles relating to political processes seem to be out of date (see the failed RM above). Thus, "2024 constitutional reform attempts in the Philippines" serves as a general descriptive title that both provides a broad framing as to the topic (more understandable than "political crisis") while also providing flexibility to cover changes to the political situation. It also matches Constitutional reform in the Philippines. Such a general title would not preclude later splits or shifts in focus, which have emerged as potential possibilities in discussions above given this is a current event. CMD (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics and Tambayan Philippines have been notified of this discussion. CMD (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support So that we can get rid of the current title. This proposal is far better than the current title. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, the proposed title matches the context of the conflict within the government better than labeling it as a "political crisis". It may be somewhat similar to the scenario of the 2020–2022 Malaysian political crisis, but not as lasting or prevalent as the "political crisis" described there. Just my observations. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Have made my position in the earlier discussion. - MistahPeemayer (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• support but also suggest 2024 Philippine political reform attempts as it’s slightly less wordy Pdubs.94 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support constitutional reform for accurate description. Borgenland (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. HueMan1 (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Howard the Duck. I don't think this will be the final name, but for now, it is a reasonable compromise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:27, 4 April 2024 (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.

Now that we have moved the article

• Rewrite the lead, deemphasizing "political crisis" to another term.
• Get rid of the infobox or use another template other than {{Infobox civil conflict}} (LOL ORLY?).

Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead done. Also tweaked Template:Bongbong Marcos sidebar although I'm not sure it's the best pipe. I'd delete that infobox entirely if it didn't mean potentially losing those sources from the article. CMD (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources can be used on the prose. After all, infoboxes aew supposed to be a summary. If the sources in the infobox can't be used in the prose, all the more reason why it shouldn't be there. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure they can, I just do not have time to go through with sufficient care at the moment. CMD (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed two redundant cites, but I'm not sure what the infobox does that prose can't do. A couple of the infobox cites aren't in the prose (and probably shouldn't be there). I'm hesitant to dig too much deeper as I'm not as familiar with the ongoing process, but I just wanted to add that I'm not convinced an infobox is appropriate here, and at a minimum, it needs to be trimmed down. Not every "fact" needs to be in an infobox, which should probably be limited (if allowed at all) to the MOST significant facts, not all bullet points. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Most people expect an infobox for every article. I'd suggest to use {{Infobox event}} over the current one, which has military overtones. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes have their place, but not in every article, to be honest. I won't labor it, I'm just saying I'm not convinced it adds anything here. We've had entire Arb cases over them, people warring over them. Crazy. Anyway, if we are going to have one, I'm saying it should be trimmed to only the most relevant, sourced *facts* that summarize the big picture, and not provide extraneous details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the infobox. I would suggest if an infobox would be added back, is to use {{Infobox event}}. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)